What’s Wrong with Ethnocentrism?

To return once more to the topic of ethnocentrism (i.e., seeing and experiencing and interacting with the world from the perspective of your own culture / your own frame of reference, without an understanding of the different cultures of others, or the ability to enter into their frame of reference and experience), I would like to ask whether ethnocentrism is compatible with seeking peace, and if not, what’s wrong with it?

Here are some of the characteristics of ethnocentrism, with reference to the stages of Bennett’s “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity”*:

(Denial)

• lack of awareness of cultural difference
• lack of interest in cultural difference
• inability to distinguish cultural difference (e.g., thinking of “Africans” or “Asians” or even “foreigners” as a broad category without internal differentiation)
• isolation or intentional separation from different others

(Defense)

• lack of understanding of cultural difference or others who are different
• a negative experience of difference, and reaction against it – feeling threatened by difference
• one’s own culture experienced as the only viable one
• polarization (“us” / “them”)
• generalizing and positively stereotyping one’s own people and culture
• generalizing and negatively stereotyping other peoples and cultures
• prejudice, denigration, possibly animosity, toward those who are different
• in the extreme, dehumanizing and/or demonizing others 

(Minimization)

• trivializing difference, acting as if people are basically the same (i.e., as if others are basically the same as ourselves)
• thus, not relating to others as they truly are, in their uniqueness or fullness
• lack of cultural self-awareness
• generalizing from one’s own experience, principles, practices, to others – assuming that what “works for us” is universal, relevant and applicable anywhere and everywhere and to everyone
• those in a dominant or majority group not being aware of how racial minorities experience race relations, men not being aware of how women experience gender issues, etc.
• assuming we have “the answers” for everyone, not being aware that the questions that others are asking, may be different than our questions

In sum, ethnocentrism is a form of self-centeredness, on a group and cultural level. It ranges from ignorance through defensiveness to a somewhat benign assumption of similarity, but in all cases, one cannot know and relate to others as they are, from any point on the spectrum of ethnocentrism.

There are many reasons why someone might decide that it would be best not to stay in an ethnocentric state.  From the perspective of seeking peace, I would argue that ethnocentrism, while “natural” to people, is not compatible with living in a way that will lead to building peace between peoples.

                                                                                                               

I recently wrote up some “peace lessons” from the women and men I have met in Israel and the Occupied West Bank, who are actively engaged in trying to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (http://salemshalom.blogspot.com/2011/03/peace-lessons-from-my-travels-in.html). Among the lessons:

* We must learn to see all people – including our “enemies” – as human beings created in the image of God, due respect and honor and treatment as such (regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, etc., and regardless of how they are treating us). The way Sheikh Ghassan put it, to see that “the person in front of me is me with a different language, religion, ethnicity, etc.,” and to “make my enemy into my friend.” The way the Quakers put it is to find “that of God” in all people. The way Jesus put it is that we must learn to love our neighbor and love even our enemy, and “do to others as we would have them do to us.”

* We need to develop an understanding of God, of religion, and of people that rises above the ethnocentric “tribalism” of believing that God is for us and our people and against others (and that uses religion/the name of God to justify fighting and killing others).

* We need to build relationship with those on the other side of a conflict. We need to share our stories, get to know each other, find what we have in common, embrace our shared humanity, and find ways to work together to end the conflict.

* Conversely, walls and checkpoints and occupation and humiliating others; enshrining our own ethnicity and religion and nationality; playing the role of the victim; and justifying actions which serve ourselves and our interests while mistreating others, do not lead to peace.

Living in a state of ethnocentrism will prevent us from the above positive steps, and will lead us to the negative ways of interacting with others. If we are living in ethnocentrism, we will not see other people who are different than us (racially, ethnically, religiously, in their nationality, etc.) as fully human. We will not be inclined to understand people, to relate to them, to seek to build bridges and friendship. If we are living in ethnocentrism, our god will be a tribal god, belonging and loyal to our people, and against others who are against us. If we are living in ethnocentrism, we will build walls to keep out the alien other, and we will do to others what we would never think of doing to ourselves or our own people (in fact, we will justify doing to others what we would never tolerate others doing to us).

Even at the most positive, least destructive stage of ethnocentrism, minimization, we will fall short of the full potential of building peace between ourselves and others. Peace, as many people have pointed out, is more than the absence of conflict. True, deep, lasting peace, the kind of peace that creates a context within which people can live their lives most fully, requires relationship, understanding, empathy with those who are different than us.

If there is ever to be true peace between Israelis and Palestinians, they will need to move beyond dismantling the separation Wall and the Occupation, agreeing upon borders, and addressing the various legal issues that have accrued over the past 60+ years. For true peace, salaam, shalom – a blessed life, characterized by harmony and well being – Palestinians and Israelis will need to build relationships and come to know each other, listen to and care about each other’s stories, understand each others’ suffering and perspectives (please note: the peace activists in the situation are working on this, and are seeing some success – this is not only possible, it is necessary, and it is not “pie in the sky” idealism). And ethnocentrism will hinder these efforts.

Ethnocentrism, in one way or another, in one form or another, is at the heart of many of the problems which exist between groups of people in the world today (and throughout history). It seems clear that if we want to work for peace in the world, we need to reject, and seek to identify and grow beyond, ethnocentrism in all of its manifestations.

Coming soon: Beyond Ethnocentrism…

* For more on each of Bennett’s stages of Ethnocentrism, see:

http://salemshalom.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-peace-denial.html

http://salemshalom.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-peace.html

http://salemshalom.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-peace-part-3.html

For full treatment of Bennett’s model, see

Bennett, Milton J., “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Paige, R.M. (Ed). (1993) Education for the Intercultural Experience (2^nd ed., p. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, Milton J., “Becoming Interculturally Competent.”  In Wurzel, Jaime S., ed., Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation, 2004.

Does Bennett understand the Golden Rule?

In my previous post on the third stage of ethnocentrism, minimization, in Bennett's "Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity," I briefly mentioned that Bennett sees the "Golden Rule" as somehow characterizing this phase (see http://salemshalom.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-peace-part-3.html). (He goes on to say that what he calls the "Platinum Rule" is characteristic of moving into the ethnorelative stages of acceptance and adaptation, learning to "do unto others as they would have you do unto them" - but that's a discussion for a future post.)

The way Bennett discusses the "Golden Rule" may be problematic for people who are used to thinking of Jesus' words as a pinnacle of ethical teaching; and I suppose that some might on that basis reject Bennett as not knowing what he is talking about, if he would suppose that living by Jesus' "Golden Rule" is only a stepping stone toward a deeper and more positive way of relating to others.

Thus I raise the question, does Bennett understand the "Golden Rule"?

To quote Jesus' words,

"Therefore, whatever you want people to do for you, do the same for them, because this summarizes the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

I would argue that Bennett does not rightly characterize the essence of Jesus' teaching here. He does rightly point out that often (and in the stage of minimization in dealing with culturally different others), we ere by doing to others as if they were us, and thus falling short of treating them in the most fully loving way.

But Jesus' intent, I believe, is that our "doing to others as we want them to do for us" would imply, that we understand them and thus do to them as they want us to do to them - for this is what we would all want, is it not? I want people to understand me, to know me, to show me respect in the way that is meaningful to me, etc. And thus, to follow Jesus' teaching, I should seek to relate to others in the depth of knowing them as they are (and not projecting myself onto them, assuming that they are like me).

Thus, although I think Bennett misrepresents the heart of the Golden Rule, I believe his model (the DMIS) and teaching stands, and in fact resonates with, I would even say is built upon, the teaching of Jesus (though I don't think Bennett ever actually refers to Jesus).

My point here is that one can hold to Jesus' teaching as the pinnacle of ethical teaching, and embrace Bennett's model. For me, at least, they are compatible. And to "do unto others as I would have them do unto me" is to be led in the direction of ethnorelativism, growing in understanding and accepting others as they are. Which, I will argue in coming posts, is a significant movement in the direction of seeking to build peace.

How ethnocentrism hinders peace (part 3) - minimizing difference

Ethnocentrism, stage three: Minimization

The third stage in Bennett’s model of intercultural sensitivity (the DMIS)* is minimization, about which he comments, “The last attempt to preserve the centrality of one’s own worldview involves an effort to bury difference under the weight of cultural similarities.”

Minimization is the most “tricky” of the stages of ethnocentrism, and perhaps the most difficult, even dangerous, in that it is hard to recognize, it seems on the surface to be positive and nice, and it is possible to function at what seems a good level of interaction with people of other cultures, at this phase.

In minimization, people move beyond the polarization of the defense stage (see http://salemshalom.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-peace.html), to a more positive experience of cultural difference. At this stage, cultural difference is overtly acknowledged while not being negatively evaluated. Rather, difference is trivialized by being subsumed under perceived similarity.

“In minimization, human similarity seems more profound than cultural difference, and so we can stand on the common ground of our shared humanity and put aside our differences.”

Minimization is alluring, because of its perceived sensitivity. Bennett is fond of pointing out that people in minimization tend to think of themselves as living by the “Golden Rule,” to “do unto others as you want them to do unto you” – but then he points out the limitations of that approach in relating to different others.

One characteristic of people who are in the minimization stage of dealing with difference is that they have a tendency to think they can just "be themselves" when they travel or enter a different cultural setting, and things will be fine.

Minimization is certainly more pleasant to experience than defense. It is the difference between having a taxi driver ask me to get out of his taxi, in the Middle East, upon hearing that I am an American, versus a taxi driver saying, “that’s okay, it doesn’t matter what your nationality is – we’re all ‘children of Adam’.”

The problem with minimization, though, and why it belongs as a stage of ethnocentrism, is that when I treat people who are culturally different than I am, as if they were not, I am treating them as if they were me, part of my culture. When I “do unto others as I would have them to do unto me,” I fall short of treating them as the unique (and different than me) people that they are.

This is especially problematic with people who are part of a majority or dominant group (in a society or in an organization). Those in the dominant group tend to project their own culture on others, and not see (or experience) significant difference that exists. It has become axiomatic for me that if you want to know how race relations are in a group, you have to ask someone in the minority, not in the dominant group (who will tend to think that “we have no problem with that here”). If you want to know how things are in the area of gender issues, you have to ask women, not men. If you want to know how cultural sensitivity is going in a multicultural group, again, you have to ask those from one of the minority cultures represented.

In the individual realm, we might see minimization in an example of the so-called “love languages.” If I try to love my wife the way that I like her to show love to me, it generally doesn’t work out that well, because she isn’t me. In another realm, if I try to show someone respect by acting in the way that I like others to show me respect, again, it doesn’t tend to hit home for them. Or in yet another area, for me as a strong T (thinker) on the Myers-Briggs (MBTI) to relate well to a friend who is a strong F (feeler), I cannot assume that we are the same (which ends up with me thinking of him as a T, the way that is natural to me).

Bennett talks about two different kinds of minimization, one centered on what he calls physical universalism, and another on what he calls transcendent universalism. The former emphasizes physical needs, e.g., that “all people must eat, procreate, and die.” The latter “suggests that all human beings, whether they know it or not, are products of some single transcendent principle, law, or imperative,” which may be described in religious, economic, political, psychological or other terms. In all cases, cultural differences are ignored, subsumed under dynamics or realities which supposedly trump or neutralize the cultural dimension.

It is easy to find examples of minimization at work, when you know what to look for. They include the confidence with which a group of people leave their own cultural or national context, certain that they have “universal principles” that will work for anyone, anywhere – whether those principles and practices be in leadership, church organization and life, economic development, education, government, politics, or any other area. Americans are obviously adept at this. But the reaction of the rest of the world to those who go abroad with this confidence, is one indication that the values, principles, practices, etc., are not as universal as their proponents assume.

One of the problems with minimization is that people seem sensitive and nice, and can go a long way acting on the assumption of similarity. But the limits of minimization are significant. Think, for example, of the long history of failed aid and development projects. Or consider the reaction of the Arab and Muslim world to the U.S. attempt to export democracy, American style (most Americans still don’t “get” that anyone would have a problem with that). I discovered the limits of minimization when I tried to evaluate Egyptian friends by Covey’s 7 Habits (see http://contextualliving.blogspot.com/2011/02/are-coveys-7-habits-universal.html), or when I attended a Maxwell conference on leadership at an Egyptian church, and tried to imagine what a group of Egyptian leaders were learning from presenters who were parochially American in their language and their examples (had they ever travelled abroad?).

So how does minimization hinder peace?

Minimization is a better place to be than denial or defense, in moving toward peace. In minimization, there can be a kind of peace, a kind of calm coexistence, at least on the surface of things.  But this can be deceptive (which is one of the worse things about minimization). If true peace requires relationship, then minimization represents an obstacle, because when we act as if others are no different than ourselves, when we minimize difference, we cannot really know people as they are, and we cannot therefore attain the depth of genuine relationship that is necessary to build peace. Beyond that, if we interact with different others according to some kind of transcendent universalism, we are probably guilty of trying to fit them into our mold (with the extreme, as Bennett points out, being “aggressive conversion activities”). For people to live together (not apart) in peace, there has to be a level of understanding of and respect for difference, that is not found at the stage of minimization.

And whenever there is “baggage” in the history between groups, or tension, or open conflict, minimization definitely does not work well. Imagine trying to build peace – i.e., positive, constructive relationships built on mutual understanding, etc. – between women and men, whites and blacks, Muslims and Christians, or Palestinians and Israelis – on the assumption that the similarities are greater than the differences, that we’re “all basically the same.”

We cannot minimize cultural differences, and build peace. We cannot project ourselves on others, treat others as if they were us, and build peace. We cannot arrogantly assume that what “works” for us, is right for others around us, and that they should do things “our way,” and live at peace with them (not in the positive sense of a strong positive peace, anyway).

We cannot stay in minimization, and build the depth of peace that we need in our world.

(To be continued...)

*For full treatment of Bennett’s model, see

Bennett, Milton J., “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Paige, R.M. (Ed). (1993) Education for the Intercultural Experience (2^nd ed., p. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, Milton J., “Becoming Interculturally Competent.”  In Wurzel, Jaime S., ed., Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation, 2004.