ethnocentrism problems essay

Ethnocentrism In Psychology: Examples, Disadvantages, & Cultural Relativism

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Ethnocentrism in psychology refers to the tendency to view one’s own cultural or ethnic group as superior and to judge other groups based on the values and standards of one’s group. It is the belief that one’s own culture is correct and superior compared to other cultures.

In essence, ethnocentrism leads individuals to use their own ethnic group and its standards to interpret and evaluate other groups, often in a negative manner.

Those who are ethnocentric assume their cultural norms are the ideal that other cultures should be measured against or aspire to.

For example, someone who is ethnocentric might believe their traditional cuisine or clothing is the proper way, and that other cultural practices are inferior or strange in comparison.

Or they may think their language should be the default spoken, rather than needing to accommodate other languages.

Ethnocentrism occurs when one believes that their own cultural group is superior to others.

Explanation

Individuals who are ethnocentric will believe that their culture’s beliefs, ideas, values, and practices are correct, and they use the standards in their own culture to assess other cultural groups.

They will tend to have negative attitudes toward other cultures and believe their beliefs, ideas, values, and practices are wrong or strange.

A popular example of ethnocentrism is to think of the utensils different cultures prefer to use. Some cultures prefer to use forks, spoons, and knives to eat and may believe that it is weird or incorrect that some cultures traditionally use chopsticks to eat.

Ethnocentrism can occur for anyone across most cultures and societies and is not limited to one culture.

It is thought to occur largely because people have the greatest understanding of their own culture, leading them to believe that the norms and standards of their own culture are universally adopted.

So, if they notice anything that deviates from their cultural norms, this can lead to ethnocentric attitudes.

Some researchers believe that ethnocentrism comprises in-group favoritism and vilification of out-groups; thus, people have a high opinion of their own group and think negatively about out-groups.

How does ethnocentrism relate to psychology?

The predominant view in psychology has been white males, mainly from the USA.

It means psychologists ignore views, values, language, or culture from elsewhere.

For example, views about the signs and symptoms of mental disorders in the DSM are based on white male experiences, so other experiences are ignored.

Views about appropriate patterns of child rearing are based on the practices shared in white, English-speaking cultures and other ways devalued.

In psychology, ethnocentrism can exist when researchers design studies or draw conclusions that can only be applied to one cultural group.

Ethnocentrism occurs when a researcher assumes that their own culturally specific practices or ideas are ‘natural’ or ‘right.’

The individual uses their own ethnic group to evaluate and judge other individuals from other ethnic groups. Research that is ‘centered’ around one cultural group is called ‘ethnocentric.’

When other cultures are observed to differ from the researcher’s own, they may be regarded negatively, e.g., ‘primitive,’ ‘degenerate,’ ‘unsophisticated,’ ‘undeveloped,’ etc.

This becomes racism when other cultures are denigrated, or their traditions are regarded as irrelevant etc.

Ethnocentrism in psychology can reduce the generalisability of findings since the researchers may not have accounted for cultural diversity.

What are the disadvantages of ethnocentrism?

While it is not necessarily bad to believe your culture is good or to be patriotic, ethnocentrism is the belief that your culture is superior, which can come with downfalls.

Ethnocentrism can lead to people being more close-minded to how other people live, almost as if they are living in a bubble of their own culture. This can reinforce the in-group/out-group mentality.

Believing that one’s own culture is correct can spread misinformation about other cultures, leading to negative consequences.

If a group upholds the belief that other groups are inferior to them, this could result in groups discriminating against each other. On an extreme scale, ethnocentrism can lead to prejudice or racism.

Upholding the sanctity of one’s own culture may hinder societal progress and may prevent cooperation between cultures.

Cultural groups may be less likely to help each other in times of need and may only seek to preserve the people in their own group whom they consider more important.

Specifically, ethnocentrism in research could result in negative consequences if the materials used for research are produced with one culture in mind.

An example of this is when the United States Army used IQ tests on individuals before World War I, which was biased towards white American ideas of intelligence.

Because of this, Europeans had lower scores of intelligence, and African Americans were at the bottom of the IQ scale.

This had a negative effect on the attitudes of white Americans towards these other groups of people, specifically that they were not as intelligent as them.

When research does not consider ethnocentrism, this can reinforce pre-existing discrimination and prevent other cultures from having equal opportunities.

Ethnocentrism examples

Ethnocentrism in samples.

Some of the most famous psychological studies (such as Milgram’s, Asch’s , and Zimbardo’s) used only white American males in their samples.

Conclusions were drawn from the results that the results would be the same across all cultures. However, the results were different when these studies were replicated on other groups of people.

As these studies were conducted a long time ago, you may expect that psychological research is more culturally diverse now.

However, psychology still has a long way to go to be truly representative of all cultures. There is still a strong Western bias, with one analysis finding that 90% of participants in research are drawn from Western countries, with 60% of these participants being American (Thalmayer et al., 2021).

They go on to say that only about 11% of the world’s population is represented in the top psychology journals and that 89% of the population is neglected.

The Strange Situation 

Ainsworth’s classic study of The Strange Situation (1970) is an example of ethnocentric research. This study was developed to assess the attachment types of infants – the sample in this study used all American infants.

Many researchers assumed this study has the same meaning for infants from other cultures as it did for American children. However, the results from other cultures were very different.

Most noteworthy are the differences observed in Japanese and German infants compared to American infants.

While the American ideal standard for attachment is ‘secure attachment,’ many Japanese infants displayed behaviors that would be considered ‘insecure-resistant attachment’ whilst many of the German infants displayed what would be considered ‘insecure-avoidant attachment.’

The different results from other cultures were presented as ‘abnormal’ and in need of explanation rather than considering that the differences are due to cultural differences in how children are raised.

It does not mean that German mothers are more insensitive or that Japanese mothers are too clingy to their children just because their infants react differently to American children.

The methods used in The Strange Situation are examples of imposed etic, meaning to study a culture from the outside and make inferences in relation to one culture’s standard.

More valid results could be obtained through the use of an emic study, meaning studying culture from the inside.

Ethnocentrism and Cultural Bias

Cultural bias in psychology is when research is conducted in one culture, and the findings are generalized to other cultures or are accepted as universally applicable.

Ainsworth’s research is culturally biased since standards were set regarding what securely attached means based on an American-only sample.

This theory was then generalized to other cultures so that what was considered the behavior of securely attached children in America should be what all children in other cultures should behave to be considered securely attached.

The parenting styles and behavior of their infants in cultures outside of America being seen as abnormal because it doesn’t fit the American norms is what relates cultural bias to ethnocentrism.

Another example of cultural bias relates to the designs of standardized tests such as intelligence tests. Intelligence tests that are designed by Western researchers reflect the idea of what the West considers as being intelligent.

However, Western cultures may have a different idea of what qualifies as intelligence compared to other cultures.

Thus, when using Western-designed intelligence tests in non-western countries, there is likely to be a bias in the results since the test measures something from the benchmark of different cultural experiences.

This can lead to ethnocentrism if those outside of the West score significantly lower on intelligence scores, leading to the West having the misconception that non-Western countries are less intelligent.

There are two types of cultural bias that can relate to psychological research:

Alpha bias – this occurs when a theory assumes that cultural groups are profoundly different. Since their differences are exaggerated, the cultural norms and values of the researchers are considered superior to other cultures.

Beta bias – this occurs when real cultural differences are ignored or minimized. All people are assumed to be the same, resulting in research that is universally applied to all cultures.

What is Cross-Cultural Psychology?

Cross-cultural psychology is a branch of psychology that examines how cultural factors influence human behavior.

The goal is to look at both universal and unique behaviors to establish the ways in which culture has an influence on behavior, relationships, education, etc.

After focusing on North American and European research for many years, Western researchers began to question whether many of the observations and ideas that were considered to be universal actually apply to other cultures outside of the sample that was studied.

Many cross-cultural psychologists have found that many observations about human thought and behavior may only be generalizable to specific groups.

An emic approach, which looks within cultures to identify behaviors that are specific to that culture, is usually the most appropriate approach to studying cross-culturally.

With the emic approach, researchers can immerse themselves fully into a culture and develop a deep understanding of their practices and values.

From this, they can develop research procedures and interpret the findings with that culture in mind. These procedures would then not be used across other cultures where they may yield invalid results.

What topics can be studied in cross-cultural psychology?

Cross-cultural psychology can explore many topics, such as:

Child development – whether unique cultural practices influence development.

Emotions – do all people experience emotions the same way? Is emotional expression universal?

Language – whether the acquisition of language and its development is similar or different between cultures?

Relationships – the differences in family, romantic relationships, and friendships that are influenced by culture.

Personality – the degree to which aspects of personality might be influenced by or linked with cultural influences.

Social behavior – understanding how cultural norms and expectations have an effect on social behavior.

What are the benefits of cross-cultural psychology?

By understanding what could have been cultural bias, researchers have increased their understanding of the impact of culture, cultural differences, and culture-specific behaviors.

This has had benefits when it comes to diagnosing mental illness, for example. Previously, some culture-specific behaviors were often misdiagnosed as a symptom of a disorder.

Recent issues of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) now include a list of culture-specific behaviors that help diagnose mental health issues accurately.

Modern researchers are now able to travel a lot more than they would have done in the past. They are able to have contact with people from all across the globe as well as being able to hold talks and conferences where researchers from different cultures can meet to discuss ideas.

This may mean there should be less cultural bias now since researchers from other cultures being able to talk can help grow understanding and acceptance of differences.

Researchers can also use input from people from different cultures to discuss any potential methodology flaws which can lead to cultural bias.

Ethnocentrism vs. cultural relativism

Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two ways in which we assess a culture that is not our own.

While ethnocentrism means someone may judge other cultures based on the standards of their own cultures, cultural relativism is the notion that a culture should be understood on its own terms, without judgment against the criteria of another culture.

Someone who is ethnocentric may believe that their culture is ‘correct’ and ‘normal,’ but someone who adopts cultural relativism understands that one culture is not better than another.

An example of ethnocentrism is believing that the traditional clothing of a culture other than your own is ‘strange’ or ‘incorrect.’ In contrast, cultural relativism would appreciate and accept that different cultures have their own clothing and would not make a negative judgment about someone’s clothing even if it is different from what is the norm for them.

In research, cultural relativism is the ideology that what may be observable in research may only make sense from the perspective of the observed culture and cannot be applied to different cultures.

Ethnocentrism can be avoided or reduced by studying culture using an emic approach. This approach aims to observe cultural differences in the relevant context and uses that culture’s concepts or standards.

Ethnocentric studies are not inherently invalid and should not be disregarded. Instead, researchers should make sure to point out that their research may only be applied to the sample they studied, and the application to other cultures is questionable.

Cultural Relativism in Psychology 

An example of how cultural relativism is relevant in research is noted by Sternberg (1985), who stated that the meaning of intelligence is different in every culture.

They noticed that in some cultures, coordination and motor skills are essential to life, so if someone excels in these skills, they are considered highly intelligent according to that culture.

However, in other cultures, motor skills are less relevant to intelligent behaviors, and the culture instead values vast knowledge on a range of topics, such as intelligence instead.

There is the development of ‘indigenous psychologies’ in research, which draws explicitly on the unique experience of people in a different cultural context.

Afrocentrism is an example of this, which suggests that theories of people with African heritage must recognize the African context of behaviors and attitudes.

This approach matters because it has led to the emergence of theories that are more relevant to the lives and cultures of people not only in Africa but also those far removed from their African origins.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are some examples of ethnocentric behavior.

In psychology, ethnocentric behavior can occur when a researcher conducts a study in a particular culture and then states in their findings that their results can be generalized to all cultures.

Likewise, when researchers apply their theory to another culture, and the results differ from what was the norm in their culture, they state that there is something wrong with that culture.

Otherwise, some other examples of ethnocentric behavior include:

– Judging other cultures’ food and specialty dishes.

– Judging people’s cultural outfits.

– Expecting others to speak your language and criticizing them if they can’t.

– Historical colonialism.

– Judging someone who chooses to live on their own when it is traditional to always live with family in your culture.

What is ethnorelativism?

Ethnorelativism is the ability to see values and behaviors as cultural rather than universal.

It is a belief based on respect for other cultures, believing that all groups, cultures, or subcultures are inherently equal.

Furthermore, it is the belief that other cultures are no better or worse than one’s own but are equally valid despite their differences.

What is the difference between ethnocentrism and racism?

As ethnocentrism implicates a strong identification with an in-group, it can lead to ingrained negative feelings and stereotyping of out-group members, which can be confused with racism.

Whilst they are not the same, ethnocentrism can lead to prejudiced behaviors and attempts to impose one’s subjective culture onto other cultural groups.

Ethnocentric attitudes can lead to prejudice and discrimination based on race and the belief that one race is superior to all others.

What is the difference between ethnocentrism and xenocentrism?

While ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own culture is superior and correct compared to others, xenocentrism is the belief that other cultures are better than one’s own culture.

Essentially, xenocentrism is the opposite of ethnocentrism. In some ways, xenocentrism is considered deviant behavior as it goes against the norms of what someone is expected to appreciate.

Examples of this can include:

– The belief is that vehicles manufactured in other countries are better than ones made in your own country.

– European Renaissance artists desired to emulate ancient Greek artwork.

– The belief that cheeses and wines from other countries are superior to the products from your own country.

– The belief that the style of clothing in another culture is superior to those within your own culture.

– The idea that quality products cannot be purchased in one’s own country.

Further Information

• Teo, Thomas, and Angela R. Febbraro. “Ethnocentrism as a form of intuition in psychology.” Theory & Psychology 13.5 (2003): 673-694.
• Christopher, J. C., & Hickinbottom, S. (2008). Positive psychology, ethnocentrism, and the disguised ideology of individualism. Theory & psychology, 18(5), 563-589.

Hasa. (2020, February 17). What is the Difference Between Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism. PEDIAA. https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethnocentrism-and-cultural-relativism/#:~:text=and%20Cultural%20Relativism-,Definition,using%20standards%20of%20another%20culture

Rosado, C. (1994). Understanding cultural relativism in a multicultural world.  The Elements of Moral Philosophy , 15-29.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(3), 607.

Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116–129.

Tilley, J. J. (2000). Cultural relativism.  Hum. Rts. Q. ,  22 , 501.

Feb 5, 2024 8:25:23 AM | International Volunteering Ethnocentrism: Its Impact on Society and How to Overcome It

Ethnocentrism is defining your own ethnic group as the ‘standard’ for all cultures, leading to unhelpful comparisons between people groups.

Most people feel more comfortable in familiar surroundings. That’s not wrong or unexpected. But it can become an issue when feelings of discomfort with the unfamiliar turn into beliefs that your worldview trumps all others. 

This kind of ethnocentrism, or looking at other cultures through the lens of your own, can influence how you interact with others.

During international volunteer experiences , ethnocentric thinking can shape your perception of the communities you partner with and make that experience less meaningful.

What Is Ethnocentrism ?

Ethnocentrism is a term used to describe the tendency to use one’s own cultural or ethnic group as a base measure against others. In simple terms, it’s using your own ethnic group as the standard, which can lead to the belief that your culture or ethnicity is superior to all the others and a biased or distorted view of groups outside of yours.

American sociologist William Graham Sumner has been credited with popularizing the term in his 1906 book Folkways , but the ideas behind the term are much older.

It’s generally accepted that the word, a combo of Greek words “ethnos,” or “nation,” and “kentron,” or “center,” evolved from ideas explored throughout the 18th century. It has appeared in German, French, and Polish philosophical texts. 

While its roots are in social sciences like anthropology and social psychology, ethnocentric conversations are more common today in discussions around racism, European colonialism, and the effects of these comparisons. 

An ethnocentric mindset can result in a lack of understanding and appreciation for cultural differences. It can lead to the perception that there is only one way “normal” or “right” way to do things, which can contribute to stereotypes, prejudice, and even discriminatory practices.

Examples of ethnocentrism are describing certain practices as “exotic,” “primitive,” “savage,” or “barbaric,” or turning your nose up at traditional foods of different cultures. It can look like assuming one’s own language is superior to others. 

In travel or study abroad , language superiority applies most often to English speakers who default to English, whether they’re in China, India, or a country in Africa. Ethnocentrism in America can look like the belief that all newcomers should speak English and adopt Western traditions.

When it comes to international volunteerism, ethnocentrism can contribute to white saviorism , or the idea that certain communities need saving from privileged, often white, volunteers. 

Let’s look at some specific impacts a bit more closely:

• Stereotyping: G eneralized ideas about a cultural group can result in relying on stereotypes and biased perceptions of that group.
• Cultural Misunderstanding: Ethnocentrism can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of what may be cultural norms and values for a group of people. 
• Narrow Mindset: Biases behind ethnocentric attitudes may affect more inclusive and diverse societies where different cultures can coexist. 
• Isolationism: The idea that your own culture is best can lead some to limit their exposure to other cultures altogether and adopt an in-group vs. out-group mindset. 
• Global Tensions: Global isolationism can limit communication between countries and cause tensions based on a lack of understanding of a different point of view. 
• Discrimination: The ugliest aspects of ethnocentrism can lead to justifications for discriminatory behavior against people from different cultural backgrounds.

How Ethnocentric Thinking Impacts Volunteering

Ethnocentric thinking can have impacts before a volunteer even leaves their home country. Volunteers may come in with certain values and expectations intact that are at odds with the communities they aim to partner with.

This can lead to misunderstandings and unintentional disrespect. It can create obstacles to effective communication between the volunteer and partner community members, making an experience much less meaningful for everyone involved.

This can happen in any volunteer setting. Ethnocentric thinking can impact attitudes and approaches closer to home, too, when volunteers assume they have nothing to learn from the subculture they’re “helping” at that moment.

At Global Medical Brigades, our holistic model supports volunteers from start to finish. That includes examining biases before our international programs begin. 

Learn more about our Brigades and what we do as the largest student-led movement for global health.

Ethnocentrism vs. Cultural Relativism

While ethnocentrism looks at how similar other cultures are to your own, cultural relativism looks at how those cultural differences serve the needs of those groups.

It’s a common perspective among anthropologists and a growing branch of cross-cultural psychology. How do these traditional practices bring value to other cultures in positive ways and contribute to their social identity?

Cultural relativism comes from a place of learning instead of judgment. Cultural relativists see the value in understanding a culture within its own context and taking a more nuanced approach to traditions and beliefs.

This kind of approach supports cultural empathy and diversity. It allows people to examine their cultural biases and embrace differences in a more inclusive, respectful way. 

Does cultural relativism imply approval for all cultural practices? Cultural relativism can imply approval for all cultural practices, but it depends on whether the approach is taking an absolute or critical approach.

Critical cultural relativism leaves room for asking questions about cultural practices when human rights issues are involved. A common example is the practice of female genital mutilation, which is still prevelant in some African, Asian, and Middle Eastern countries.

Groups like the World Health Organization and UNICEF have labeled the practice a human rights violation, but cultural norms persist.

Ways to Combat Ethnocentrism

Taking on ethnocentrism starts with self-reflection. Some of our biases are so ingrained that it can be a challenge to come to new ideas from a place of understanding, let alone appreciation. Most people don’t know they’re being ethnocentric.

Here are a few ways to take on ethnocentrism if you think it may be an issue:

• Educate yourself. Prepare for a more ethical volunteer experience by learning about where you’re going. Develop an understanding for cultural traditions before you go. Choose to view the people, traditions, and cultures you will encounter through a lens of non-judgment, rather than trying to compare them to your own culture.
• Expect differences. Culture shock is normal. Before your big international trip or volunteer experience , expect those differences so that you can better appreciate them. 
• Support inclusivity. Find ways to celebrate diversity at home beyond performative activism so that you can leave any ideas of in-group favoritism behind. 
• Develop global empathy. Global empathy is about recognizing the value of contributions from other cultures as an extension of global citizenship .
• Watch your language. Use empowering language in volunteer experiences that correlates to learning and collaboration versus serving or saving.
• Recognize the global community. The more we interact with groups outside of our own, the more we appreciate cultural differences. This supports intergroup cooperation.

Global Brigades Is Doing Our Part, Too

In most cases, ethnocentric attitudes aren’t something people are aware of, so examining those attitudes can be difficult. At Global Brigades, we believe that education is an important step in practicing respect for other cultures.

Our clinical volunteer opportunities through Global Medical Brigades offer pre-med students the chance to not only develop their skills in real-world settings, but also learn from our partners. 

On top of that educational piece, all of our programs come from a place of sustainability to ensure any gains we make in our partner communities are long-term. 

How to Get Involved

Are you ready to get out of your bubble and support tangible change in global health?

If you’re unable to travel but interested in doing more, our Medical TeleBrigades may be a great fit for you.

Written By: Alexa

You may also like.

Apr 14, 2011 4:38:50 PM | Brigader Buzz GB Invites Volunteers to Africa!

Jul 28, 2010 11:09:39 AM | Students join together to give the gift of mobility!

Jul 19, 2011 2:59:19 PM | From the Field Brigaders Bring Life Straws to Community Members in Ghana

Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism

Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of one’s own culture. Part of ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own race, ethnic or cultural group is the most important or that some or all aspects of its culture are superior to those of other groups. Some people will simply call it cultural ignorance.

Ethnocentrism often leads to incorrect assumptions about others’ behavior based on your own norms, values, and beliefs. In extreme cases, a group of individuals may see another culture as wrong or immoral and because of this may try to convert, sometimes forcibly, the group to their own ways of living. War and genocide could be the devastating result if a group is unwilling to change their ways of living or cultural practices.

Ethnocentrism may not, in some circumstances, be avoidable. We often have involuntary 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 conflict over culture practices and beliefs, we must all try to be more culturally relative.

Cultural relativism is the principle of regarding and valuing the practices of a culture from the point of view of that culture and to avoid making hasty judgments. Cultural relativism tries to counter ethnocentrism by promoting the understanding of cultural practices that are unfamiliar to other cultures such as eating insects, genocides or genital cutting. Take for example, the common practice of same-sex friends in India walking in public while holding hands. This is a common behavior and a sign of connectedness between two people. In England, by contrast, holding hands is largely limited to romantically involved couples, and often suggests a sexual relationship. These are simply two different ways of understanding the meaning of holding hands. Someone who does not take a relativistic view might be tempted to see their own understanding of this behavior as superior and, perhaps, the foreign practice as being immoral.

D espite the fact that cultural relativism promotes the appreciation for cultural differences, it can also be problematic. At its most extreme, cultural relativism leaves no room for criticism of other cultures, even if certain cultural practices are horrific or harmful. Many practices have drawn criticism over the years. In Madagascar, for example, the famahidana funeral tradition includes bringing bodies out from tombs once every seven years, wrapping them in cloth, and dancing with them. Some people view this practice disrespectful to the body of the deceased person. Today, a debate rages about the ritual cutting of genitals of girls in several Middle Eastern and African cultures. To a lesser extent, this same debate arises around the circumcision of baby boys in Western hospitals. When considering harmful cultural traditions, it can be patronizing to use cultural relativism as an excuse for avoiding debate. To assume that people from other cultures are neither mature enough nor responsible enough to consider criticism from the outside is demeaning.

The concept of cross-cultural relationship is the idea that people from different cultures can have relationships that acknowledge, respect and begin to understand each other’s diverse lives. People with different backgrounds can help each other see possibilities that they never thought were there because of limitations, or cultural proscriptions, posed by their own traditions. Becoming aware of these new possibilities will ultimately change the people who are exposed to the new ideas. This cross-cultural relationship provides hope that new opportunities will be discovered, but at the same time it is threatening. The threat is that once the relationship occurs, one can no longer claim that any single culture is the absolute truth.

Culture and Psychology Copyright © 2020 by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Ethnocentrism in Psychology: Definitions, Examples, and How to Combat Biases

Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

Akeem Marsh, MD, is a board-certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist who has dedicated his career to working with medically underserved communities.

dragana991/iStock/Getty Images

Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own ethnic, racial, or social group is either superior or the norm against which all other groups should be compared. While it can sometimes be a conscious belief, such as believing foods or customs of cultures aside from your own are strange or inferior, it’s more often an unconscious process.

In psychology, that conscious or unconscious ethnocentrism can influence research, lead to misdiagnosis, and cause serious harm to the communities that are overlooked or pathologized as abnormal for not conforming to Western norms.

Why Ethnocentrism Occurs

In a 2010 review of psychological studies, researchers found that 96% of participants across all studies came from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. But these WEIRD societies represent just 12% of the global population. Studies also tended to skew toward White, middle-class, suburban communities within those WEIRD societies, making the sample size even less representative of the diversity of the human experience.

“Given that the social world is based on norms and mores of a group of people, oftentimes behavior that is seen as adaptive [or] maladaptive can be culturally informed as well,” explained Dr. K. Chinwe Idigo , a licensed psychologist who specializes in incorporating multicultural theory , social context, and social justice into her practice. “For example, customs, norms, and expectations of an immigrant family may differ from customs of a mainstream family living in the same community.”

This near-exclusive focus on the psychology of such a tiny sample size has led to the generalization of White, middle-class, suburban cultural values and ideas about mental health across the entire global population. The experience of a small subset of humanity is treated as the default or standard against which everyone else is compared—and when they don’t fit, they’re liable to be judged abnormal or unwell.

Clinical practice mirrors the ethnocentrism found in research. “Therapists are trained in colleges and universities where approximately 75% of faculty are White,” said Dr. Idigo.

Because the data and training are so heavily biased to such a small subset of the human population, it’s hard for mental healthcare providers to untangle that ethnocentrism in their own practice.

What Are Some Examples of Ethnocentrism?

There are many examples of psychological theories or concepts that have long been believed to be universal or unchanging that ultimately don’t work when applied to non-WEIRD societies. “This shows up in therapeutic modalities that are normed on White culture and identity and often fall flat when used with clients from the Global Majority,” said Maryam Elbalghiti-Williams , LCSW-C, LICSW, CCTP-11, a licensed therapist who applies a culturally-responsive and multicultural approach to treatment.

Attachment theory , for example, argues that children develop their attachment style—or model of relationships—within the first three years of their lives and largely on the basis of how they relate to their primary caregiver.

The theory is based entirely on studies of American infants and later cross-cultural research has shown that it doesn’t hold up well in more collectivist cultures where children are raised by an entire community, rather than just by their immediate biological parents. Nevertheless, this theory has been used to justify removing Indigenous children from their communities and placing them in non-indigenous foster families, under the assumption that a permanent nuclear family is the best situation for the child.

The concept of trauma in psychiatry has also been criticized as ethnocentric. It treats trauma as an individualized problem, ignoring the prevalence of collective or intergenerational trauma experienced by marginalized groups. Definitions of what constitutes trauma is likewise often limited to personal forms of trauma, like physical or sexual abuse, and exclude systemic or historical trauma like racism, genocide, or colonialism.

How Ethnocentrism Shows Up in Psychology

This ethnocentrism in psychological research can bleed into how healthcare providers approach care. “These biases can lead to misdiagnoses or incorrect treatments, as well as a lack of understanding of the patient's cultural experiences,” said Gary Tucker, Chief Clinical Officer and Licensed Psychotherapist at D’Amore Mental Health .

Dr. Idigo added, “It might inform the treatment goals we establish for a client, as our biases influence our idea of what wellness looks like.”

For example, the narrow understanding of trauma as isolated, personal experiences like child abuse or war not only misses the experience of other kinds of trauma but also limits the tools healthcare providers have for treating trauma.

Exposure therapy, during which patients are encouraged to talk about their traumatic memories as a way of confronting them, is one of the primary methods used to treat PTSD. Another widely-used method is cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), during which patients are meant to unlearn negative thought patterns that cause them to always fear catastrophic outcomes or be hyper-vigilant about avoiding potential dangers.

But, as one academic paper pointed out, neither of these methods really apply to the case of refugees fleeing violence. For one, the threat of violence not over, as the risk of being denied asylum or being tracked down by those who want to harm them persists. So the idea that fearing that possibility is simply a “negative thought pattern” that needs to be unlearned isn’t accurate here.

Moreover, during the strict asylum claim process, refugees are often forced to describe their trauma in great detail, sometimes over and over again, in order to convince authorities that their asylum claim is legitimate. Because of that, the common approach of confronting one’s memories through exposure therapy may not have much of a therapeutic effect.

Why Ethnocentrism Is Harmful

As seen in the examples mentioned earlier, ethnocentrism can cause a lot of harm to the many, many people who are excluded from the research and clinical practice of psychology. Generalizations about how family dynamics should work can displace children. Narrow definitions of trauma can exclude people from treatment by failing to accurately diagnose their trauma or lead to inappropriate treatment plans. But it can also do harm in less overt ways.

“A key complaint I hear from clients who find me after several attempts at finding a therapist is that they felt unseen, like they couldn't show up fully as themselves with providers who lacked critical awareness of themselves and the impact of culture in the therapy room,” said Elbalghiti.

Even when a clinician isn’t overtly ethnocentric or consciously bias, then, this lack of awareness and training can render them unequipped to care for patients from historically marginalized and overlooked groups.

“This can leave certain populations without access to necessary services or treatments or make individuals from different backgrounds feel like their perspectives aren't accepted seriously,” said Tucker.

Ethnocentrism vs. Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism refers to the awareness that your own culture is neither the norm nor the superior culture in the world. Instead of judging others according to your own cultural standards, you try to understand them through the lens of their own culture.

This awareness acts as an important counter to ethnocentric biases and assumptions, which can impact the way clinicians treat clients. For example, “Western Psychology's emphasis on individualism and individuation as a developmental imperative leads to pathologizing clients from collectivist cultures and labeling them as ‘enmeshed’ or lacking a sense of self,” said Elbalghiti.

Through the lens of cultural relativism, on the other hand, both researchers and clinicians would be better able to evaluate behavior and mental state according to the patient’s own terms. In Elbalghiti’s example, it would help them understand that the patient doesn’t necessarily lack a sense of self, but simply constructs that sense of self differently.

How to Recognize and Control for Our Own Biases

For those who want to get better at recognizing their own biases and providing more culturally sensitive care, the best thing you can do is educate yourself. “Mental health providers need to prioritize investing their time and financial resources in depth-oriented trainings and learning communities led by BIPOC clinicians that focus on raising critical consciousness about race and culture over one dimensional cultural competence trainings,” said Elbalghiti.

Talk to colleagues with different backgrounds. Seek out research from BIPOC scholars. Enroll in continuing education courses or training led by BIPOC mental health experts. “Educating yourself about diverse cultures can help you understand different perspectives to better provide culturally competent care,” said Tucker.

In addition to broader education and training, experts recommend critically examining your views and assumptions. “Evaluate your beliefs regularly and question whether those thoughts are based in fact or come from a biased perspective,” said Tucker. The more education and training you get, the easier it will be to recognize potential biases.

Even with regular education and reflection, ethnocentrism is so pervasive in psychology that it’s hard to catch every instance of it in your practice. So it’s important to account for that when caring for patients.

According to Dr. Idigo, “A collaborative approach to treatment can help mitigate the effects of unconscious biases on treatment.” That collaboration includes encouraging clients to participate in establishing treatment goals and checking in with clients regularly to find out if the treatment is considerate of their cultural and personal values.

Instead of making assumptions based on their background or identity, ask questions and engage with clients to shape a treatment plan that makes sense for that individual. 

Amir D, McAuliffe K. Cross-cultural, developmental psychology: integrating approaches and key insights . Evolution and Human Behavior. 2020;41(5):430-444. Doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.06.006

Choate P, Tortorelli C. Attachment theory: a barrier for indigenous children involved with child protection . IJERPH. 2022;19(14):8754. Doi:10.3390/ijerph19148754

Thambinathan V, Kinsella EA, Wylie L. Decolonizing trauma studies: A critically reflexive examination of epistemic trauma and intergenerational memory, and its implications for conflict-fleeing migrant diaspora communities . SSM - Mental Health. 2023;3:100225. Doi:10.1016/j.ssmmh.2023.100225

By Rachael Green Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

1.3 Overcoming Ethnocentrism

Learning outcomes.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define the concept of ethnocentrism and explain the ubiquity of ethnocentrism as a consequence of enculturation.
• Distinguish certain forms of ethnocentrism in terms of their historical relationship to forms of empire and domination.
• Identify primitivism in European and American representations of African peoples.
• Identify orientalism in European and American representations of Asian and Middle Eastern peoples.

Have you ever known somebody who seems to think the world revolves around them? The kind of friend who is always talking about themselves and never asks any questions about you and your life? The kind of person who thinks their own ideas are cool and special and their own way of doing things is absolutely the best? You may know the word used to describe that kind of person: egocentric. An egocentric person is entirely caught up in their own perspective and does not seem to care much about the perspectives of others. It is good to feel proud of your personal qualities and accomplishments, of course, but it is equally important to appreciate the personal qualities and accomplishments of others as well.

The same sort of “centric” complex operates at the level of culture. Some people in some cultures are convinced that their own ways of understanding the world and of doing things are absolutely the best and no other ways are worth consideration. They imagine that the world would be a much better place if the superior beliefs, values, and practices of their own culture were spread or imposed on everyone else in the world. This is what we call ethnocentrism .

Enculturation and Ethnocentrism

We are all brought up in a particular culture with particular norms and values and ways of doing things. Our parents or guardians teach us how to behave in social situations, how to take care of our bodies, how to lead a good life, and what we should value and think about. Our teachers, religious leaders, and bosses give us instruction about our roles, responsibilities, and relationships in life. By the time we are in our late teens or early twenties, we know a great deal about how our society works and our role in that society.

Anthropologists call this process of acquiring our particular culture enculturation . All humans go through this process. It is natural to value the particular knowledge gained through our own process of enculturation because we could not survive without it. It is natural to respect the instruction of our parents and teachers who want us to do well in life. It is good to be proud of who we are and where we came from. However, just as egocentrism is tiresome, it can be harmful for people to consider their own culture so superior that they cannot appreciate the unique qualities and accomplishments of other cultures. When people are so convinced that their own culture is more advanced, morally superior, efficient, or just plain better than any other culture, we call that ethnocentrism. When people are ethnocentric, they do not value the perspectives of people from other cultures, and they do not bother to learn about or consider other ways of doing things.

Beyond the sheer rudeness of ethnocentrism, the real problem emerges when the ethnocentrism of one group causes them to harm, exploit, and dominate other groups. Historically, the ethnocentrism of Europeans and Euro-Americans has been used to justify subjugation and violence against peoples from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas. In the quest to colonize territories in these geographical areas, Europeans developed two main styles of ethnocentrism, styles that have dominated popular imagination over the past two centuries. These styles each identify a cultural “self” as European and a cultural other as a stereotypical member of a culture from a specific region of the world. Using both of these styles of ethnocentrism, Europeans strategically crafted their own coherent self-identity in contrast to these distorted images of other cultures.

Primitivism and Orientalism

Since the 18th century, views of Africans and Native Americans have been shaped by the obscuring lens of primitivism . Identifying themselves as enlightened and civilized, Europeans came to define Africans as ignorant savages, intellectually inferior and culturally backward. Nineteenth-century explorers such as Henry M. Stanley described Africa as “the dark continent,” a place of wildness and depravity (Stanley 1878). Similarly, European missionaries viewed Africans as simple heathens, steeped in sin and needing Christian redemption. Elaborated in the writings of travelers and traders, primitivism depicts Africans and Native Americans as exotic, simple, highly sexual, potentially violent, and closer to nature. Though both African and Native American societies of the time were highly organized and well-structured, Europeans often viewed them as chaotic and violent. An alternative version of primitivism depicts Africans and Native Americans as “noble savages,” innocent and simple, living in peaceful communities in harmony with nature. While less overtly insulting, the “noble savage” version of primitivism is still a racist stereotype, reinforcing the notion that non-Western peoples are ignorant, backward, and isolated.

Europeans developed a somewhat different style of ethnocentrism toward people from the Middle East and Asia, a style known as orientalism . As detailed by literary critic Edward Said (1979), orientalism portrays peoples of Asia and the Middle East as irrational, fanatical, and out of control. The “oriental” cultures of East Asia and Middle East are depicted as mystical and alluring. The emphasis here is less on biology and nature and more on sensual and emotional excess. Middle Eastern societies are viewed not as lawless but as tyrannical. Relations between men and women are deemed not just sexual but patriarchal and exploitative. Said argues that this view of Asian and Middle Eastern societies was strategically crafted to demonstrate the rationality, morality, and democracy of European societies by contrast.

In his critique of orientalism, Said points to the very common representation of Muslim and Middle Eastern peoples in mainstream American movies as irrational and violent. In the very first minute of the 1992 Disney film Aladdin , the theme song declares that Aladdin comes from “a faraway place / where the caravan camels roam / where they cut off your ear if they don’t like your face / it’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.” Facing criticism by antidiscrimination groups, Disney was forced to change the lyrics for the home video release of the film (Nittle 2021). Many thrillers such as the 1994 film True Lies , starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, cast Arabs as America-hating villains scheming to plant bombs and take hostages. Arab women are frequently portrayed as sexualized belly dancers or silent, oppressed victims shrouded in veils. These forms of representation draw from and reproduce orientalist stereotypes.

Both primitivism and orientalism were developed when Europeans were colonizing these parts of the world. Primitivist views of Native Americans justified their subjugation and forced migration. In the next section, we’ll explore how current versions of primitivism and orientalism persist in American culture, tracing the harmful effects of these misrepresentations and the efforts of anthropologists to dismantle them.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Jennifer Hasty, David G. Lewis, Marjorie M. Snipes
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Anthropology
• Publication date: Feb 23, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-anthropology/pages/1-3-overcoming-ethnocentrism

© Dec 20, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

POSTMODERN CULTURE

• CALLS FOR PAPERS
• SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

The Ethics of Ethnocentrism

Ivan Strenski

University of California, Santa Barbara [email protected]

Tzvetan Todorov, On Human Diversity . Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Intellectual historian-cum-literary critic Tzvetan Todorov has given us a series of thoughtful essays on a cluster of issues of wide current concern: ethnocentrism, humanism, scientism, racism, nationalism, universalism, cultural relativism, exoticism, and the like. Todorov seeks further to identify the leading French thinkers on these subjects, and in doing so to identify the main proponents of what he believes are the key “ideologies” or “justifications” of French “colonial conquests” (xiii). Partly because of the luster of French thought, Todorov believes that this study will constitute nothing short of “research into the origins of our own times” (xii).

These ambitous intentions may well go unrecognized in America, however, where the book’s publishers have created a false impression of the author’s aims and of the scope of his work. In translating the original French title, Nous et les autres: La Reflexion francaise sur la diversite humaine , as On Human Diversity , the editors at Harvard have pushed aside Todorov’s broadly dialectical and dialogical purposes in favor of their much narrower concerns. A nuanced and thoughtful book that seeks to guide our thinking about how we should behave toward one another has been served up as yet another contribution to the banal and stifling American conversation about “diversity.” Readers of the book will perhaps be amused by the irony here: a foreign book dealing with ethnocentrism is given a very specifically American (i.e., ethnocentric) packaging before being offered to a domestic readership. But in any case, the book itself should come as a pleasant surprise, addressing as it does a refreshingly broad range of us/them questions and offering a number of provocative theses.

To begin with one of the book’s more important themes, Todorov asserts that perhaps the first error we should eliminate from our thinking about the us/them issue is the dichotomy of “us” and “them” itself. He points out that these categories are highly provisional and unstable in any event, and that one of “them” may be felt to be a lot more like me than one of “us.” (We see this instability at work in the tendency of white suburban men to identify more closely with murder suspect O.J. Simpson than with murder victim Ron Goldman.) Todorov’s aim is to have us judge in terms of “ethical” principles, not in terms of some presumed membership in one or another group of “us.”

Todorov also threads his way through such issues as the relation of colonial domination to humanitarian universalism. In chapter one, “The Universal and the Relative,” he slides from one end of the dialectic to another, covering a range of opinion on the question of the purported unity or diversity of the human species and its values. Are we one or infinitely many? And, if many, of what significance are the differences? Is there a “universal scale of values,” and “how far does that scale extend”? Here, Todorov performs a useful service for this and future discussions by stipulating the usage of key terms. Thus, for him, “ethnocentrism” is taken to name the “most common” version, indeed a “caricature,” of universalism. This holds that we all are one, because the “other” is basically just like “us.” It affirms both the form of universality and a “particular content.” Thus, it has been a commonplace of French ethnocentric universalists to claim both that the human species and its values are essentially one (and thus, universal), and that these values happen to be best embodied in France. All men seek liberty, equality and fraternity, n’est ce pas ?

Todorov brings out the clever strategems by which universalism often masks ethnocentrism. This is notoriously so in the way French imperialism often justified its expansionist ventures in terms of bringing (French, of course) “civilization” to the “savages.”

But Todorov is too wise in these matters to let the facile critique pass that universalism always hides a more sinister ethnocentrism. Sometimes nations can act in behalf of humanity. Sometimes they can rise above national interest. Had he written this book more recently, Todorov might have had something in mind like the French humanitarian and military actions in Rwanda. Compared to the sorry parade of supposedly shrewdly calculated self-interested American inactions, Medicins sans Frontieres acted in behalf of humanity, despite their specific national origins. Is it only accidental that they should be French? One also thinks of the French rushing in troops (in the name of humanity) to prevent greater loss of innocent life in Rwanda. Despite the cynicism which attended this military action, the French succeeded in turning the tide against further genocide. They also acted in effect to seal the victory of the Anglophone Tutsi minority over the Francophone Hutu, thereby opposing what would seem to be their own national interests. Was it only an accident again that it should have been France who behaved in this way? Many a self-interested and narrowly national evil has been perpetrated in the name of humanity. But, if they are habituated to thinking about the larger human species, perhaps some nations can at times overcome their own interests.

Todorov argues further that universalism is not the only villain in perpetuating colonialism. Any available justification will serve colonialist ambitions: if not universalism, then Lebensraum . Besides, Todorov argues, ideologies such as (ethnocentric) universalism seldom, if ever, “motivate” colonial enterprises; they merely serve as post-facto “self-legitimations.” Indeed, for Todorov, universalism isn’t even the primary legitimating mechanism for colonial violence–scientism is. “Scientism,” he says, is the most “perverse” and the most effective ideological weapon in the armory of ethnocentrism and racism, because it so easily passes undetected. People are rarely “proud of being ethnocentric,” whereas they often “take pride in professing a ‘scientific’ philosophy.” Here, Diderot becomes a major exemplar of “scientific ethnocentrism,” as do Renan, who makes a religion of science, and Gobineau, with his fully elaborated scientific racialism. Todorov’s discussion of this aliance between the scientific and the colonial is on the whole fully persuasive. Certainly science has served the needs of modern racialism all too efficiently; both Hitler and Stalin, we must recall, boasted that their ideologies were strictly scientific.

Perhaps the most compelling recurrent theme of the book is that of the “tragic duality” between humanism or universalism and nationalism or patriotism. The “man” is not the “citizen.” Humanitarian patriots, epitomized by those who sought to spread universal humanism after the French Revolution, bear a heavy responsibility for the wars that raged in Europe from the late eighteenth century to the end of the First World War: “these wars were accepted all the more easily in that they were presented as invested with the prestige of the French Revolution and the humanitarian ideal.” Those who try thus to reconcile humanity and patriotism court disaster, because they inevitably bend humanity to the interests of the particular nation.

But the radical separation of “man” and “citizen” is tragic in its own way, since it locks us into moral relativism. Are there, asks Todorov, no “crimes against humanity”? Can we no more than shrug our “ethical shoulders” at the Nazi extermination camps, viewing them as legitimate expressions of German culture? Is the tribal custom of clitoridectomy a cultural practice which, rather than judging in their typically self-righteous way, Europeans should try better to “understand from the native’s point of view”? Or, is it a fearsome affront to the very humanity of women?

Some sort of reconciliation is necessary between humanity and particularity. Todorov believes that this reconciliation is not possible at the level of empirical human nature, but rather at the level of how we think–at the level of “culture.” Culture, he argues, is something close to being “natural” in the sense that it is “given” and thus pre-exists the individual, but it is also something like a contract (since it is willed), and can be acquired or affected by education. But while we can specify these universal contours of culture in general, there is no unity of the species on the level of a particular cultural feature. What is universal is “not one quality or another, but the capacity to acquire any of them.” “The French language is not universal,” observes Todorov, but “the aptitude for learning a language is.” We need, he argues, to become critical of the particular features of our own culture without ceasing to recognize that it is culture itself that enables us to become “human.”

In listing these key themes which are woven through Todorov’s essays, I am also indicating that On Human Diversity lacks a single strong central thesis or major argument. This is a deliberate feature of Todorov’s writing–he conceives of it as a process, as offering an “itinerary” rather than a blue print. To be sure, those who are looking for a single-minded and tightly organized discussion will be disappointed by such an approach. The book is in places too cursory, in places too digressive. But Todorov’s intentions show a wisdom of their own. Because he eschews heavy documentation and a strict architectonic of argument, On Human Diversity seems able better to maintain a compelling and powerful moral compass. The book’s unity is moral, rather than logical or thematic. What holds the various essays together is Todorov’s insistence on always inserting ethics into the analysis and the practice of politics. Todorov realizes that ethics cannot replace politics, but he also believes that ethics can exercise a crucial restraining function within the political field.

This ethical orientation amounts to a kind of neo-humanism, and Todorov concludes his volume with an ethically-inflected defense of humanism against its various unnamed French detractors (Levi-Strauss? Derrida? Foucault?). Instead of seeing humanism as generating its own auto-toxins, Todorov argues that it has been distorted and undermined by irrepressible holistic impulses. Nationalism, racialism, and totalitarian utopianism are all monstrous reinventions of ideals originating in holistic ideology. Citing the seminal and often misunderstood work on the Hindu caste system of French anthropologist and social thinker Louis Dumont, Todorov urges that we must learn to “temper” the humanitarian ideal of the Enlightenment by putting it into play with “values and principles from other perspectives.” Only in this way will we find “new [benign] expressions for the repressed holistic values” whose subjugation to individual freedom was part of the price we paid for the triumph of humanist individualism.

Aside from elaborating, in his loosely-structured way, this humanist articulation of ethics with politics, Todorov reflects autobiographically on both the personal and the institutional contexts from which his particular orientation has emerged. In his preface, Todorov recalls his experiences as a zealous young “pioneer” living under a Stalinist regime. During this time, he remarks, he “came to know evil,” even while he was inhibited from acting against it. The more formative moment came, however, after Stalin’s death, when relief and hope gave way to an awareness that things would not really change. Todorov confronted with increasing frequency the “vacuity of the official discourse,” a lofty Orwellian language whose real function was to mask the apparatus of domination. The “evil” he had come to know was not to be located in the dictator after all, but in the whole social and discursive system of which the evil dictator was but a symptom. In the wake of this recognition, even Todorov’s strong faith in Marxist principles would wither. Fortunately, he was able to migrate to France, where he resumed his studies in the human and social sciences in Paris.

Todorov’s honeymoon with the West was, however, soon over. Among his politically obsessed French academic colleagues, he found the same absence of “an ethical sense” which he once thought peculiar to the Stalinist East. Of these Western intellectuals, Todorov observes sarcastically that the “goals that inspired them were most often variants of the very principles I had learned to mistrust so deeply in my homeland.” Almost as frustrating as this sclerotic and inhumane Marxism among his French academic colleagues, however, was the petit-bourgeois professionalization and the crabbed compartmentalization of the modern university.

Todorov’s institutional goal, therefore, has been to map out new approaches to matters that he believes have been avoided or mishandled by intellectuals more rooted than he in the particular political postures and disciplinary arrangements of the Western academic system. Instead of adjusting himself to the contours of this system, he has rebelled against it. On Human Diversity is something like a culmination of that rebellion, a book written from a totally deviant point of departure, one that, in its unfashionably humanist ethics and in its declared preference for the “moral and political essay” over conventional scholarship in the human or social sciences, must offend both the radical left and the conservative defenders of disciplinary specialization.

It is hard in a few lines to celebrate how well the episodic and thoughtful meditative style of this extended moral essay works to heap, bit by bit, a weight of historical evidence onto the reader about the moral implications of the issues coming visibly to a head in our time. But it does.

• Volume 33, Number 1, September 2022
• Volume 32, Number 3, May 2022
• Volume 32, Number 2, January 2022
• Volume 32, Number 1, September 2021
• Volume 31, Number 3, May 2021
• Volume 31, Numbers 1 & 2, September 2020 & January 2021
• Volume 30, Number 3, May 2020
• Volume 30, Number 2, January 2020
• Volume 30, Number 1, September 2019
• Volume 29, Number 3, May 2019
• Volume 29, Number 2, January 2019
• Volume 29, Number 1, September 2018
• Volume 28, Number 3, May 2018
• Volume 28, Number 2, January 2018
• Volume 28, Number 1, September 2017
• Volume 27, Number 3, May 2017
• Volume 27, Number 2, January 2017
• Volume 27, Number 1, September 2016
• Volume 26, Number 3, May 2016
• Volume 26, Number 2, January 2016
• Volume 26, Number 1, September 2015
• Volume 25, Number 3, May 2015
• Volume 25, Number 2, January 2015
• Volume 25, Number 1, September 2014
• Volume 24, Number 3, May 2014
• Volume 24, Number 2, January 2014
• Volume 24, Number 1, September 2013
• Volume 23, Number 3, May 2013
• Volume 23, Number 2, January 2013
• Volume 23, Number 1, September 2012
• Volume 22, Number 3, May 2012
• Volume 22, Number 2, January 2012
• Volume 22, Number 1, September 2011
• Volume 21, Number 3, May 2011
• Volume 21, Number 2, January 2011
• Volume 21, Number 1, September 2010
• Volume 20, Number 3, May 2010
• Volume 20, Number 2, January 2010
• Volume 20, Number 1, September 2009
• Volume 19, Number 3, May 2009
• Volume 19, Number 2, January 2009
• Volume 19, Number 1, September 2008
• Volume 18, Number 3, May 2008
• Volume 18, Number 2, January 2008
• Volume 18, Number 1, September 2007
• Volume 17, Number 3 May, 2007
• Volume 17, Number 2, January 2007
• Volume 17, Number 1, September 2006
• Volume 16, Number 3, May 2006
• Volume 16, Number 2, January 2006
• Volume 16, Number 1, September 2005
• Volume 15, Number 3, May 2005
• Volume 15, Number 2, January 2005
• Volume 15, Number 1, September 2004
• Volume 14, Number 3, May 2004
• Volume 14, Number 2, January 2004
• Volume 14, Number 1, September 2003
• Volume 13, Number 3, May 2003
• Volume 13, Number 2, January 2003
• Volume 13, Number 1, September 2002
• Volume 12, Number 3, May 2002
• Volume 12, Number 2, January 2002
• Volume 12, Number 1, September 2001
• Volume 11, Number 3, May 2001
• Volume 11, Number 2, January 2001
• Volume 11, Number 1, September 2000
• Volume 10, Number 3, May 2000
• Volume 10, Number 2, January 2000
• Volume 10, Number 1, September 1999
• Volume 9, Number 3, May 1999
• Volume 9, Number 2, May 1999
• Volume 9, Number 1, September 1998
• Volume 8, Number 3, May 1998
• Volume 8, Number 2, January 1998
• Volume 8, Number 1, September 1997
• Volume 7, Number 3, May 1997
• Volume 7, Number 2, January 1997
• Volume 7, Number 1, September 1996
• Volume 6, Number 3, May 1996
• Volume 6, Number 2, January 1996
• Volume 6, Number 1, September 1995
• Volume 5, Number 3, May 1995
• Volume 5, Number 2, January 1995
• Volume 5, Number 1, September 1994
• Volume 4, Number 3, May 1994
• Volume 4, Number 2, January 1994
• Volume 4, Number 1, September 1993
• Volume 3, Number 3, May 1993
• Volume 3, Number 2, January 1993
• Volume 3, Number 1, September 1992
• Volume 2, Number 3, May 1992
• Volume 2, Number 2, January 1992
• Volume 2, Number 1, September 1991
• Volume 1, Number 3, May 1991
• Volume 1, Number 2, January 1991
• Volume 1, Number 1, September 1990

14 Best Examples of Ethnocentrism (For Students)

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

Ethnocentrism is the belief that your culture is natural and correct while other people’s cultures are incorrect, unnatural, or inferior.

Here’s a scholarly definition from Sumner, the person who coined the term:

“…the view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it” (Sumner, 1906)

A person who is ethnocentric will shun and look down upon other cultures and the ways they do things (also known as ‘ cultural bias ‘). They will have a narrow-minded outlook that fails to see things from other people’s perspectives (often manifesting itself as cultural blindness ). They may also ascribe to the concept of cultural universalism .

Ethnocentrism can be a contributing factor to prejudice, racism, and xenophobia. In all these instances, you’re considering yourself and your culture to be the best compared to all others.

Ethnocentric people think the ways they do things is the way things should be done, and every other culture’s way of doing things is unsavory or undesirable.

Examples of Ethnocentrism

1. judging other countries’ diets.

An example of ethnocentrism is when you judge other countries for the way they eat, but don’t have a moral reason for this.

For example, many Americans might thing Peruvians eating Guinea Pig to be disgusting. But, a Pervuvian might ask: how is eating Guinea Pig different to eating chicken? For traditional Peruvian cultures, Guinea Pigs are animals to be eaten!

Similarly, an American might turn up their nose at the French eating snails. Given that snails are not smart animals (certainly not as smart as pigs!), the idea that we would judge or shun their consumption of these animals may just be a knee jerk reaction and not based in logic.

2. Expecting Others to Speak English

Many of us arrogantly believe that everyone should speak English to us, no matter where we are in the world.

When traveling the world, many of us English-speakers live with the expectation that others will speak English to us. We have this luxury because English is currently the world’s dominant language – especially in business interactions.

This can lead to ethnocentrism when we roll our eyes are people who aren’t bilingual, even when we’re in their own country!

This is a common criticism that Quebecois Canadians have of English-speaking Canadians. They will travel to Quebec and expect Quebecers to speak English to them, even though their local language is French.

It’s a good reminder to us that we should humbly ask people if they speak English, and if they don’t, we can’t be upset. We wouldn’t want to think that English is the natural and normative language and all other people should learn it!

3. Chopsticks vs Western Cutlery

This is one of the most common examples of ethnocentrism that I start out with in my seminars on ethnocentrism.

Likely, many westerners would consider chopsticks to be a strange tool for eating. They appear clumsy and unnecessarily difficult to manage.

But many Asian cultures where chopsticks are the norm may have opposite views. They may laugh at the clumsiness of foreigners when they use chopsticks. They might consider us to be uncultured for having to use forks.

Of course, not everyone thinks this way. But some of us do, showing how we think our way of doing things is the right and natural approach, and other people’s approaches are – naturally – inferior.

4. An Idiot Abroad

I will often show my students clips from An Idiot Abroad because it’s so full of examples of ethnocentrism!

Below is a great clip of Karl eating some Egyptian delicacies. His commentary about the strangeness of it all shows his sense that his English diet (of Pasta, chicken and potatoes) is normal and the Egyptian diet is just strange.

Often when I show these clips to my students, their instant reactions are disgust at the parts of the animal that people in other parts of the world eat.

But as the Egyptian man in this clip says, it’s natural to them. They consider eating as much of the animal as possible to be the right thing to do, and anything else to be wasteful ! In this example, everyone is thinking from the norms of their own society, showing how we all tend to approach situations with a degree of ethnocentrism.

5. My Big Fat Greek Wedding

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a fun case study in ethnocentrism that you could use in classrooms.

The film shows a Greek family living in the United States who are very proud of their Greek heritage. When the daughter decides to marry a non-Greek man, the family finds it very hard to accept.

Throughout the film, the family believes that – because their culture is best – their children should attend Greek schools, learn Greek language, and study Greek history. And of course, they also want their children to marry within the Greek community.

The film is a great example of a migrant family who not only wants to retain their cultural heritage but looks upon the dominant culture with suspicion, distaste, and even sometimes scorn.

Here, they cross over from being proud of their heritage to being biased and condescending of other people’s heritage.

6. Thinking you Don’t have an Accent (And Everyone else Does!)

When you grow up only hearing one accent, it starts to feel like that ‘accent’ is normal and not an accent at all.

You often only hear accents if they’re different from your own. That’s when your brain tells you that something sounds funny.

This will often lead people to believe that they don’t have an accent . In fact, I remember when I did my semester abroad when I was younger that we used to talk about it all the time. People would say “your accent is so funny!” and I would say “no, your accent is funny!”

This is a great example of ethnocentrism. Myself and the people I was talking to saw accents from their own perspective. We all thought our accent was normal and other people’s was funny .

Of course, this is a natural thought (it’s our brain noticing the difference sounds funny to us). This ethnocentrism can be fun, and only really has a negative effect when you start discriminating against people based on their accent.

7. Judging Women’s Cultural Outfits

Women’s outfits differ significantly across cultures and societies. And while many of us might say “It’s a woman’s right to decide what she wears and we should respect her no matter what”, different cultures have various views on this!

Plenty of Europeans might feel like it’s very normal for women to wear bikinis at the beach. But head to more conservative nations and women might always cover their shoulders or hair.

In this example, again, both cultures may use an ethnocentric lens to look at the other culture. One culture says “that’s oppression of women!” while the other says “that outfit is immodest!”

Sometimes, we need to accept other people’s cultures with an open mind and try to see where they’re coming from.

8. Colonial Imperialism

Throughout the era of European imperialism and colonization, there was a widespread belief that Indigenous populations were inferior or even unintelligent.

They looked at different types of land use (such as with nomadic cultures) and governments (such as tribal rather than parliamentary systems) as rationales for these beliefs.

This gave Europeans cover so they could invade the lands of Aboriginal populations. In fact, in Australia, the British declared Australia terra nullius , or a ‘land belonging to no one’, which they believed gave them the right to colonize.

After the lands were invaded, local cultures were oppressed and people were told that the must live, dress, eat, and act like Westerners.

9. Delegitimizing Others’ Religious Celebrations

Ethnocentrism is also often directed at other cultures’ religious beliefs.

For example, in 2014 , China attempted to crack down on the celebration of Ramadan in the Muslim region of Xinjiang.

This is an example of the dominant culture believing a minority culture’s beliefs and practices are a threat or inferior within the space of the nation. The minority culture is othered so the majority culture can maintain and promote their own practices and traditions as the natural or normative traditions within the nation-state.

This is an example of ethnocentrism being put into policy in order to protect one ethnic identity and suppress another.

10. Australia’s Stolen Generations

In most of the 20 th Century (Between 1905 and 1970), Aboriginal Australian children were frequently taken from their families and placed under the care of Anglo-Australians in a systematic effort to suppress Aboriginal cultures, with the belief that the dominant Anglo-Australian culture was superior.

Children of mixed race (derogatively labeled half-castes) were particularly targeted with the fear that these children would grow to straddle both cultures and normalize Indigenous cultural traditions among white Australians.

According to Dr. Cecil Cook , the Northern Territory Chief Protector of Aborigines, there was urgency to ensure mixed race children reject Aboriginal cultures:

“Everything necessary [must be done] to convert the half-caste into a white citizen”.

11. Canada’s Residential Schools

In a similar approach to Australia, colonial Canada established residential boarding schools where first nations children would be forcibly taken in order to snuff out Indigenous cultures within Canada.

Residential schools were set up in 1828, and while most were closed in the 1960s, the last one closed in 1997.

The stated goal was to assimilate the first nations children into white Canadian culture. This would be achieved by removing children from their parents. As John A McDonald, Canada’s first prime minister, stated :

“Indian children should be withdrawn as much as possible from the parental influence.”

As part of this effort, the Canadian government placed residential schools as far from the Indian Reserves as possible. Parents would still come to the schools and camp out the front to be closer to their children, leading to a visitation pass system designed to further separate parents from their children.

12. American Exceptionalism

American exceptionalism – often characterized by the oft-repeated saying that “America is the best country in the world” – was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1831.

This is a topic that verges on ethnocentrism but does not always reach that level.

The idea behind American exceptionalism is that America’s founding (based on its constitution, and the fact the nation was founded as a free and anti-elite republic) gave America a special place in the world. This often translates to American foreign policy where the nation sees themselves as the ‘world police’ whose role is to promote freedom around the world.

Here, you can see that America sees themselves as the idealized norm against which other nations should be judged (and always found wanting!).

The concept of American exceptionalism also leads to a concept known as nationalistic Americentrism, a smug and egotistical belief that the United States is morally superior and its culture more important than those of other nations.

As former President Obama argued , American exceptionalism can also lead to failure to see the good in (and learn from) other nations. It may lead us to be reluctant to collaborate with or care for other nations’ cultures and lead migrants to feel like they should assimilate.

Here, you can see, there’s a fine line between love for your culture and nation, and irrational belief in your own country’s superiority.

13. The Spanish Inquisition

The Spanish Inquisition is one of the most extreme examples of religious ethnocentrism that has occurred in human history.

Between 1478 and 1834, the Catholic Spanish rulers decided that Catholicism should be the ascendant religion within Spain. Muslims and Jews within Spain were forced to convert or be killed.

The Inquisition has many of the hallmarks of ethnocentrism. There was a belief that Catholicism was the best religion and that all other religions were intolerable. Catholicism was the naturalized religion in society and all others were judged by Catholic doctrine to be heretics.

14. Assimilationism

Assimilation policies state that immigrants to a country should leave their old culture behind and embrace their host country’s culture.

This is a mindset that is driven by fear that your culture will be diluted by migrants. Some could argue that it is ethnocentric because it reveals a preference for your culture to remain the dominant norm and remain the standard within your country.

But, other people might argue that the willingness to protect your own culture is not ethnocentrism because it’s not saying other cultures are less valuable but rather that yours needs protection. Here, it all depends on perspective – and even, perhaps, judgement about whether a culture is genuinely under threat of dying out.

Other immigration approaches include Integration, where different cultures all live together in a patchwork throughout a city, and Self-Determination , where everyone can choose which culture they want to follow.

Get a Pdf of this article for class

Enjoy subscriber-only access to this article’s pdf

Is Everyone Ethnocentric?

Ethnocentrism is a bias or even a knee-jerk reaction where you are illogically inclined to believe that your way of doing things is best. Everyone has this anchoring bias deep down inside them, so the trick is to identify it and try to avoid it.

Of course, you can use logic, research, and reasoning to decide that the way your culture does things appear to be the best approach for you. That wouldn’t be ethnocentric because it would be based on thoughtfulness and balance. But, be sure to stay open-minded and avoid making unfair judgements of others.

As we’ve seen, such uninformed judgements have had terrible consequences around the world.

The opposite of this is xenocentrism, where you believe another culture is better than your own. For example, some people who move to the United States might have dreamed of fleeing their homeland to the USA since childhood because they’ve loved the concept of freedom, small government, and capitalism.

Taking a look at ethnocentrism helps us to identify our own biases and blind spots. And usually, people who study ethnocentrism come to conclusions that highlight the importance of cultural pluralism (that is, cultures living together and respecting one another) and compassion.

While we might not want to change our culture and traditions, we could use the theory of ethnocentrism to get to know other people’s cultures better. However, if we get go too far the other way, we end up being cultural relativists – with no moral framework guiding us at all. If we understand other people’s perspectives, we can live more harmoniously together, and remain open-minded to learning from each other.

Related: 6 Types of Cultural Diffusion

Bizumic, B., & Duckitt, J. H. (2012). What is and is not ethnocentrism? A conceptual analysis and political implications.  Political Psychology,  33 , 887-909.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00907.x

Permatasari, R. (2019). The Negative Effects of Ethnocentrism in My Big Fat Greek Wedding Movie.  Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora ,  20 (2), 89-97. https://doi.org/10.23917/humaniora.v20i2.7401

Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston, MA: Ginn and Company.

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 101 Class Group Name Ideas (for School Students)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 19 Top Cognitive Psychology Theories (Explained)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 119 Bloom’s Taxonomy Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ All 6 Levels of Understanding (on Bloom’s Taxonomy)

2 thoughts on “14 Best Examples of Ethnocentrism (For Students)”

Share an example of ethnocentrism in the media or popular culture. How does it perpetuate stereotypes?

In popular culture, the portrayal of non-Western societies as exotic, backward, or uncivilized in movies and TV shows is a form of ethnocentrism. Such representations perpetuate stereotypes by suggesting that Western norms and values are superior, while other cultures are seen as strange or inferior.

Hope that helps.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism occurs when someone judges the acts of another culture based on the preconceptions that are found in the standards and values of one’s own culture. This process can occur on a societal level or involve specific behaviors or actions in the areas of religion, language, behavior, or customs. It is in these specific categories or aspects where we can define the unique cultural identity of each ethnicity.

The term “ethnocentrism” was first developed by Ludwig Gumplowicz, and then used by social scientist William Sumner. It was used as a term to describe why one culture feels like it has always occupied the highest point of humanity when compared to other groups. This attitude or approach may apply to the current nations and cultures in the world, but it can also relate to all of the civilizations that existed in the past.

Someone who takes an ethnocentric approach will always view their own group as the center of everything in the world. Everything else is done scaled or rated with reference to their primary definition to “prove” seniority. It is an approach in life which often leads to vanity and pride, failing to see any strength in the idea of diversity.

Although there are mostly disadvantages to the views that ethnocentrism requires, some cultures and individuals can use this comparison to find some advantages.

List of the Advantages of Ethnocentrism

1. An ethnocentric perspective eliminates social order criticisms. When a society takes an ethnocentric approach, then it works to eliminate any criticism there might be of the social order. The general population will not start thinking about different political philosophies or structures because they become loyal through ethnocentrism to what currently exists. This approach maintains the prevailing order so that each person can see and understand their role in their community. It eliminates any criticism because those who want change are viewed as outliers and disloyal, which means their opinions or perspectives don’t matter to the majority.

2. It can increase the levels of devotion to a community, country, or society. From an American perspective, patriotism is seen as a positive attribute. It is an indication of a person’s solidarity and devotion to the way of life found in the United States. This loyalty is not possible unless there is an effort to maintain ethnocentric views from the top down. It is more than a home country that you support. It is a spirit where you believe that what you have is the best way to live life.

People who leave to live in a different culture are doing it for ethnocentric views, but in an opposite manner. Because you would feel that going elsewhere would inspire more loyalty, you would place yourself in the best possible position to surround yourself with people who can support you.

3. Ethnocentrism can enhance solidarity in society. When the majority of people in the society think and feel the same way about ethics and morality, then it creates less conflict in the general public. You will not find problems with racial friction, class conflicts, or sectarian violence if ethnocentrism is the approach that people take to their interactions with others. When everyone is on the same page and focused on improving their society for everyone, then it can help to bring progress to a community of any size.

The ethnocentric approach allows an individual to promote a positive self-image without much risk of conflict or rigidity because of the similarities that they share with the majority in their cultural community. Although this approach can also inspire hatred and violence, most people take a nuanced approach so that they can focus on themselves and their families first before worrying about what other people are doing.

4. It can produce higher levels of self-esteem. People will only start to compare their culture with what others experience when there are high levels of pride involved in the personal experience. You must love who you are and your community before you can make an accurate judgment on how someone else is living. This approach can be advantageous in certain circumstances because it creates opportunities for people to find common ground. By comparing who we are with who others want to be, it becomes possible to find connections with like-minded people so that we can avoid the perils of social isolation.

Humans need to feel like they’re connected to something or someone for them to feel like there is a place for them in this world. Despite its many flaws, ethnocentrism can make this possible.

5. This view can help an evolving society remember who it has always been. The people who tend to follow ethnocentric views often take their cues from history and the traditions that their ancestors brought to the modern culture. Because there is such an emphasis on keeping things the same whenever possible, it is easier to feel like we are in touch with the past in meaningful ways.

Ethnocentrism gives us an opportunity to show future generations what is possible through the implementation of continuous best practices based on historical knowledge. This process is how we can keep the distinctive elements of a culture alive for centuries without the need to find a compromise.

6. Ethnocentrism created the world as we know it today. Settlers who started venturing out to the Western states during the expansion era of America did so under the assumption that they had a manifest destiny to follow. It was God’s will that the “civilized” cultures of the east begin to migrate west to begin taming the final frontier. All of the work was completed under the idea that missionary work was occurring, bringing new opportunities to the tribal cultures already living there.

Every colonization attempting for the past 500 years has been an effort to develop new resources in foreign locations because of the belief that one’s home country is better than the colony itself. It is a rule that is similar to “finder’s keepers” because of the role that ethnocentrism plays in our personal approach.

7. It creates an attitude of independence. The people who maintain an ethnocentric view in life will not typically bother much about other societies and cultures in the world, past or present. This attitude causes them to lead a self-directed life. Some groups may come together with a similar perspective of the world, but there are also others who decide to thrive under independent isolation. People find contentment when there is unity in thought or a desire to take action. It is a process which can bring more solidarity to specific elements of society while allowing other cultures to pursue their goals at the same time without any interference.

8. Ethnocentrism can be a way to improve the world. There are some moral absolutes which exist throughout almost every human society in history. Can you imagine what life would be like if Nazi Germany had won World War II instead of the allied forces? Even though the thought of having our personal culture be superior to that of Nazi culture is ethnocentric by definition, most people would see that there is a positive element to that comparison. When people can come together to take a moral stand, then they can speak with a collective voice that can shape the world in positive ways.

The only problem with this approach is that people can speak with one voice in negative ways as well.

List of the Disadvantages of Ethnocentrism

1. Decisions are made based on unrealistic comparisons. The attitude of ethnocentrism is always one of superiority. Someone from outside of an existing culture is judging the actions of another people based on perspectives gained without the use of wisdom. Although every person on our planet has their own definition of “normal,” we cannot apply this observation to anyone else. Each person, even within a similar culture or ethnicity, leads an independent life. Their perspectives and differences are unique.

That means the conclusions which people draw when using ethnocentrism as their foundation for decision-making are based on generalizations and opinions instead of facts. Because this information does not include the other side of the equation, the conclusions we reach when using this approach are misleading at best.

2. Ethnocentrism can cause societal polarization. It is easier to be scared of something or someone who is different than you then it is to embrace the diversity that can develop through the intermingling of ideas. When we think of someone who comes from a different culture, then the initial perspective tends to be one that looks at what we don’t like about that other system. Ethnocentrism is an embrace of negativity because the only goal of this approach is to prove individualized superiority. It makes us feel good to think that the decisions we made in life are better than the ones that other people made, especially in the areas of religious salvation, moral fortitude, and family planning.

When you have two individuals or groups who look at each other and think of that other culture as being inferior, then you create polarization in society. With each group not willing to compromise because they fear that there is a lack of morality or superiority in such a position, then people take sides instead of trying to get along with each other.

3. It can impact every aspect of life if we allow it to do so. After the 2016 presidential election in the United States, there were couples filing for divorce because of the candidate whom they chose on their ballot. People can separate themselves even in the same religion by preferring one denomination over another because they think their belief structure is the best one to follow. Parents can become divided over how they decide to discipline their children. Any time that we think of one group as being superior to another (and we are in that superior group), then it isn’t an ego that is talking. It is the philosophies of ethnocentrism rearing its ugly head.

This belief system requires us to close off our minds to different perspectives and opinions. We can no longer choose to believe anything but our own thoughts or ideas because no one else to be correct. That is why societies self-destruct over time – because no one is willing to listen to what anyone else has to say. Life becomes more about what is said in the echo chamber instead of outside of it.

4. Ethnocentrism drives people away from what they love. If the only thing that a person experiences is rejection in life, then there is no desire to be around people who think of them as being inferior. This attitude drives a wedge between groups where those who are in the minority feel like the only option available to them sometimes is to leave. Communities in the United States are becoming more like minded than ever before because of this very reason. Whenever the approach of ethnocentrism is taken, it creates a circumstance where individuals or groups provide ultimatums to each other.

This approach is a “you’re with me” or “you’re against me” attitude in all aspects of life. There is no middle ground when taking the ethnocentric approach. Because the only relationships which form from these ultimatums are the ones which share specific belief systems, people are moving further away from diversity. In time, this will cause humanity to become weaker.

5. It is a philosophy which limits the human perspective. Have you ever seen someone resist change even though the new policies or procedures they were being asked to follow would make your life easier? That is another example of ethnocentrism at work. Just because someone has been completing the same task in the same way for a long time doesn’t mean that it is the best way to operate. The act of dismissing any thought of evolution or change at the micro or macro levels is evidence of an ethnocentric perspective.

That’s not to say that all changes should be followed without question. The people who are enforcing change can be just as ethnocentric in their philosophies as those who are resisting it. The issue here is that the superiority of belief found on both sides of the aisle limits the ability to implement best practices in our personal or professional lives.

6. Ethnocentrism can have deadly results. Are you the type of person who gets angry when someone has a disagreement on an opinion that you have shared? Have you changed the way that you go out in public if you’re an American because of the myriad of stories that involve gun violence in recent years? The problem that ethnocentrism ultimately brings to humanity is its nature of escalation. People become blinded by their personal perspectives to the extent where it becomes the correct choice for them to enforce their philosophies on other people at any expense.

When you see an act of terrorism, either domestic or foreign, then you are witnessing an act of ethnocentrism. If you see someone committing an act of violence against another person, then this is also ethnocentrism. Although people in the minority will sometimes rise up against these actions to commit violence themselves, a retaliatory response would not occur in society if the impression from ethnocentric views was not present in the first place.

7. This philosophy can create isolation. As Psychology Today notes, humans are hardwired to interact with other people. We seek out social connections whenever we go through a stressful incident in life. Trying to cope with a stressful incident on our own can increase anxiety levels and hinder our ability to manage emotions. Some people like to be by themselves for personal reasons, but ethnocentrism can cause social isolation simply because someone feels different (and superior) to everyone else. Even small groups of like-minded people who do not experience diversity in thought or opinion can experience this disadvantage together.

People who experience ethnocentrism in small groups will eventually find themselves experiencing appetite changes, different sleeping patterns, and some may even lose track of time or their ability to concentrate and focus. There is boredom when you are around the same people all of the time with limited sources of entertainment.

8. Ethnocentrism limits the choices that people can make. How do you feel about products which are made in China? Do you feel like they are made of a high-quality, or is there an underlying reason why there might be a distaste for imported products? When you have two items of equal quality and price available for purchase, having a consistent preference for something produced in a manner of which you approve is an ethnocentric viewpoint. Even in a free-market economy where people are free to choose whatever they want, the judgment of someone buying foreign instead of domestic sets the foundation for all of the other disadvantages listed here.

9. It hinders the work of cultural assimilation. Cultural assimilation is a process where the individuals of one culture fuse themselves with a different one as a way to fit in with in the context of ethnocentrism. Individuals and groups will work to acquire the same cultural patterns, ideas, and attitudes of the majority in their new community. When the existing people see this activity, it feels like an attempt to copy their belief structures. This process then can lead to criticism and a hindrance of the work of fitting in if you are moving from a place outside of the “normal” culture.

That is why ethnocentrism is one of the most significant societal problems in the developed world today. Instead of creating unity through diversity, this approach requires people to change who they are if the majority of people in a community deem the difference to be something that makes a person unfit for inclusion.

Verdict on the Advantages and Disadvantages of Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism is a dangerous philosophy to follow because it requires each person to make assumptions of the other without taking their perspective into account. It is more than a lack of empathy; it is a complete disregard of the understanding needed to see through a different set of circumstances. We can find this issue in the significant subjects that we debate as well as our individual choices in some matters.

Each person decides to live their life based on the ethics and values which are found in that individual’s local society. These decisions do not translate to other cultures because there are a different set of perspectives involved. The diversity that we have in humanity demands that we have a willingness to except the experiences that everyone else contributes because that is how we all become better at the individual level.

The advantages and disadvantages of ethnocentrism show us that when we embrace the uniqueness of each identity, then we can find moments of inspiration and innovation. When we are unwilling to accept a different perspective on life, then there is no way for any of us to maximize the potential of who we are.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Biblical Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• History of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Theory of Art
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Environmental History
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Sociolinguistics
• Browse content in Literature
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cultural Studies
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Technology and Society
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Criminal Law
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Maps and Map-making
• Palaeontology
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Biological Engineering
• Environmental Science
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Corporate Governance
• Industry Studies
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Secondary Education
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Political Geography
• Interdisciplinary Studies
• Browse content in Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Gender and Politics
• International Relations
• Political Methodology
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• Browse content in Sociology
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

1 Four Theories in Search of Ethnocentrism

• Published: January 2009
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter analyzes four theories that claim to speak to ethnocentrism. These theoretical perspectives include ethnocentrism as a consequence of realistic group conflict, as an outgrowth of the authoritarian personality, as an expression of social identity, and as an outcome of natural selection. The chapter analyzes the nature of ethnocentrism and discusses the explanation associated with William Graham Sumner, Daniel Levinson, Henri Tajfel, and Edward O. Wilson.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Knowledge Base
• General Essays

Ethnocentrism Essay

• Author Kimberly Ball
• Category General Essays

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Introduction

Ethnocentrism is the judging of another culture according to the qualities and benchmarks of this culture’s lifestyle. Ethnocentric individuals judge various social events regarding their specific ethnic alliance or culture, especially with stress for vernacular, lead, conventions, and religion. These racial capabilities and subdivisions serve to describe each ethnicity’s exceptional social identity. Dissecting and evaluating different phases of ethnocentrism is basic in keeping up and making a robust and productive environment. Creating systems to attract and help an individual is critical to a leader’s accomplishment in this multicultural age. Therefore the theme of this article will look to illustrate and explain the ethnocentric stages of denial and minimization of cultural differences and outline strategies that a leader in this multicultural age can use to transform the individual into a more culturally competent individual or group.

Denial is a naive ethnocentric stage in which there is foreswearing that social contrasts even exist. A man in the Denial Stage has a couple of classifications to see differences. People at this stage are not debilitated by social disparities since they decline to acknowledge them. They are ethnocentric through and through in that they accept there is a right sort of living (theirs), and that the individuals who act contrastingly mainly don’t have the foggiest idea about any better. Likewise, a man in this stage may credit subhuman characteristics to those from various societies and respect them with extraordinary partiality. In this stage, individuals incline to force their esteem framework upon others, trusting that they are “correct” and that other people who are diverse are “befuddled.” In general, the individuals who encounter social disavowal have not had extensive contact with individuals not the same as themselves, and along these lines have no experiential reason for having confidence in different societies. A vital pointer of the foreswearing stage is the conviction that your knowledge is superior to local people.

Minimization

This stages includes acknowledgment of social contrasts BUT minimizing their significance in our lives. Individuals in the Minimization Stage trust that social distinctions are merely shallow; the fundamental characteristics of being human will get the job done. Social contrasts debilitate them, and they endeavor to limit them by revealing to themselves that individuals are more comparable than divergent. Never again do they see those from varying social orders as being confused, inferior, or terrible. Despite everything, they have not made social care and are unyielding about living together in harmony with everybody. Western estimations of distinction, transparency, and trustworthiness add to this view. Once in a while, people with abroad experience discover an asylum in this stage – it empowers them to keep up a vital separation from sentiments of inadequacy notwithstanding numerous social questions. Since they accept that all societies are inherently comparative, people in this stage disregard the tailoring of their approach to successfully manage a social setting. Moving into the following phase of acceptance speaks to “a noteworthy theoretical move,” from an ethnocentric position that depends on straightforward standards (i.e., either/or) to an ethnorelative stage where answers are not all that unmistakable.

For a leader to make and keep up a thriving environment that is strong and functional, one needs to create systems and schemes to neutralize the difficulties or different phases of ethnocentrism. These procedures that will change a person into an all the more socially skilled individual and empower them to incorporate into a workplace flawlessly will be imperative for a leader’s achievement in this multicultural age.Bearing in mind that the employment of different strategies depends on the ethnocentric stage at which an individual is, a leader should be careful to understand the needs of specific individuals and correctly meet them.

For a person at the Denial Ethnocentric stage, the utilization of non-threatening social mindfulness exercises such as ethnic luncheons, entertainment by social groups, travelogues, chats on history, exhibits is suitable. The approach is commonly known as “Objective Culture Approach” which centers around the social manifestations of diverse persons. The reason for existing is to enable individuals to start to perceive contrasts. It, as a rule, constructs nature with “legends and occasions,” may include “ethnic” sustenance in the eatery or restaurant, and frequently has a devoted month featuring the commitments of subordinate gatherings. Craftsmanship shows, ensembles, shows, teachers, and pamphlet articles all join to expand the profile of different ethnic groups. By and large, this type of varying variety work is available to all, albeit regularly it isn’t obligatory. The perception of strife it that it is solvable through inclusivity.

There is a compulsion to be pretentious of such endeavors as not having any essential esteem. Be that as it may, this sort of action has its place. For those in the Ethnocentric Denial stage, where the social distinction is “out of the picture, therefore irrelevant” and administered by the decree “don’t ask, don’t tell,” such endeavors can bring society into cognizance. However, because commonality with social manifestations does not in itself improve intercultural capability, the reasonable restrictions of this style of advancement are apparent: the endeavor is decent, yet not adequate. The protection from this sort of exertion is more or less moderate, as it hardly challenges perspective or personality. Be that as it may, protection may happen from nondominant assemble individuals, who secretly lambast such endeavors as short of what expectations. However, if dealt with consciously, the Objective culture approach exercises can add to expanded consciousness of other ethnic gatherings and the part they have played to the organization and society as a whole.

According to Deane (p.1), for those in the minimization stage of Ethnocentrism, taking care of this move appears to be ideal. Utilize recreation works out, individual stories, “agents” from different societies carefully selected to demonstrate how to decipher conduct unexpectedly. Recognize the distress individuals may feel amid this move for it is ordinary. The concentration of this stage features the significance of decent variety, builds members’ recognition with what assorted variety incorporates, proposes a couple of issues that may influence the work environment, and exhibits a business case to back up the activity. All employees are subject to this approach, and any contravening is portrays a picture of one who is not on board with the workings of an organization.

The approach is agreeable and fascinating to those people who are in the minimization phase. It invokes the feeling of “small world” theory and more often than not acknowledges the variety cause, given the activity isn’t excessively requesting of progress inside the association. More prominent requests may drive those at minimization to relapse to the Ethnocentric stage of Defense, influencing them to ponder about “exceptional right” and “out of line inclination” against the majority. Be that as it may, for those as of now in protection, even this approach may push them past their status. Obviously, this does not mean wiping out the program; instead, it proposes we should be set up for the protection. Individuals from nondominant bunches see this sort of work as precisely what is not required yet are frequently ready to see it at an initial step especially for those in the later phases of ethnic personality advancement.

In conclusion, there are different stages in the ethnocentrism some of which include Denial and Minimization. They are challenges experienced in different societies at different levels. For a leader in this to enjoy success in this multicultural age he/she needs to have a pragmatical look at these challenges and come up with strategies such as have been pointed out above. The solutions offered will is foster unity in an organization amongst the peers, ensure that there is a favorable working environment and contribute to the success of a leader heading the organization. Above all, it creates a situation where there is no racial discrimination or prejudice based on one’s ethnic affiliation.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

Home / Essay Samples / Sociology / Ethnocentrism / Intercultural Communication Barriers: Ethnocentrism, Stereotypes, Prejudice, Non-verbal Communication And Language

Intercultural Communication Barriers: Ethnocentrism, Stereotypes, Prejudice, Non-verbal Communication And Language

• Category: Sociology , Culture
• Topic: Ethnocentrism , Multiculturalism , Stereotypes

Pages: 6 (2798 words)

Views: 5240

• Downloads: -->

Introduction

Ethnocentrism, stereotyping, bibliography.

• Blum, L.2004. Stereotypes And Stereotyping: A Moral Analysis. https://philpapers.org/ar chive/LAWSAS-2.pdf [06 April 2019]
• Brown, S.2007.Ethnocentism. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeose069 [17 March 2017]
• Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus. 5th ed. 2019. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Canas, K and Sondak, N. 2011.Opportunities and Challenges of Workplace Diversity. New York: Pearson Publishers.
• Garcia, N. 2006. Language Barriers in the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/1895/Final%20Rough%20Draft.pdf [15 July 2019]
• Sumner, W. G. 1906. Folkways a Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages Manners Customs Mores and Morals. https://archive.org/details/folkwaysastudys00sumngoog/page/n12 [17 March 2019]
• Voves, J. 2005. Non verbal communication. http://www2.afs.or.jp/volex2005/nvcom.pdf [15 July 2019]

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Media Analysis Essays

Speak Essays

Conflict Resolution Essays

Communication Skills Essays

Socialization Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->