How ethnocentrism hinders peace (part 2) - defensiveness toward difference

 

How defense hinders peace

The second stage in Bennett’s model of intercultural sensitivity is defense.  As someone moves from a lack of awareness of difference (the denial stage, see http://salemshalom.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-ethnocentrism-hinders-peace-denial.html) into more contact with cultural difference, the initial experience and reaction is often negative.  Differences, at this stage, are perceived as threatening to one’s sense of reality and to one’s identity, and a common reaction is to try to preserve the absoluteness of one’s worldview, in the fact of the growing awareness of difference.

Defense is characterized by polarization (“us” vs. “them”), and by a positive stereotyping of one’s own culture and identity, and a negative stereotyping of the other. Bennett refers to the negative view of the other as denigration – negative stereotyping based on race, religion, age, gender, or any other assumed indicator of difference. He refers to the positive sense of self as superiority – positive evaluation of one’s own status, with the idea that everything has evolved and will evolve in our direction (the sense of ourselves as “civilized,” etc.).

Note that defense is the predominant orientation of nation-building and nationalism. And that it deepens in times of conflict between peoples, e.g., the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the conflict between Bosnians, Serbs and Croatians in the former Yugoslavia, between Muslims and Christians post-9/11, etc. (I remember my shock, the first time I returned to the U.S. post-9/11, to see Christmas light decorations in the shape and colors of the American flag, and all the “God bless America” bumper stickers everywhere.)

Note also that at the defense stage, the "knowledge" of the other is shallow and superficial. There is an Arab proverb, "he who is ignorant of something, is its enemy." We can most easily negatively stereotype and believe the worst about others, when we do not know them, when we do not have personal relationship with them. Most of the Americans that I know, that are most suspicious of Muslims and of Islam, do not have friendships, or even basic relationships, with Muslims.

Bennett notes a variation on the polarization of the defense stage, which he refers to as reversal – the denigration of one’s own culture, and assumption of the superiority of a different culture. Although this may look more positive toward another culture than defense normally does, it is “only changing the center of ethnocentrism.” Reversal is common for people who go abroad and begin adapting to another culture, like Peace Corps volunteers. It can also occur for anyone who gets involved with another group of people and takes up “their cause.”

It is probably fairly self-evident why and how being at the defense stage, hinders peace. Again, peace requires relationship, building something positive together, coexistence. A sense of one’s own superiority, while denigrating the different other, is a serious roadblock to peace. Whether it is Israeli Jews thinking of Palestinians as “dirty Arabs,” “terrorists,” etc., or Americans wondering “what’s wrong with those Muslims, that they are always so violent,” the negative stereotyping of others – especially in situations of conflict, in which peacemaking is most necessary – makes it hard to move toward peace. And the danger, in conflict situations, is that all parties in the conflict will continue on the “downward” slide of defense, toward villainization and dehumanization of the other. The end of this ugly road is the possibility of doing anything to the other, including ethnic cleansing and extermination, with no twinge of conscience.

     

We cannot live in a state of feeling threatened by those who are different from us, and find peace. We cannot allow ourselves to dwell in “us” / “them” thinking, where we are always criticizing “those people,” and find peace. We cannot take pride in our own superiority, and denigrate those different others, and find peace. And most obviously, we cannot embrace the demonization and dehumanization of others, and find peace.

If we want peace, we must move beyond the ethnocentric stage of defense.

(Coming next: how minimization hinders peace)

*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.

Can People of Faith Rise Above Tribalism? (Reflections on the occasion of the remembrance of 9/11)

In a post on the site “Not the Religious Type,” the author refers to a recent NY Times editorial by Stanley Fish.  In his editorial, Fish points out the double standard used to discuss violent acts by or against members of a religious community, and concludes the following:

“The formula is simple and foolproof (although those who deploy it so facilely seem to think we are all fools): If the bad act is committed by a member of a group you wish to demonize, attribute it to a community or a religion and not to the individual. But if the bad act is committed by someone whose profile, interests and agendas are uncomfortably close to your own, detach the malefactor from everything that is going on or is in the air (he came from nowhere) and characterize him as a one-off, non-generalizable, sui generis phenomenon.”

What is going on here, I think, is something which we humans easily and naturally slip into, a kind of “tribalism” whereby we assume the best of those who are part of our people, and read their actions in light of our own best values (and with a generous dose of excusing and explaining away bad behavior), but assume the worst of those who are part of a different group, especially during times of conflict and tension between the communities.

(In terms of a model developed by Bennett – his “Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity” – which explains how people progress in their experience of cultural difference, this would fall into the second phase, “Defense,” in which people have a negative experience of difference, and tend to generalize and polarize and talk in “us”/“them” terms, where the “us” is generalized positively and the “them” is generalized negatively.)

The ability to assume the best of our people and the worst of others is rooted, I think, in lack of self-awareness in the first instance (glossing over how bad “we” are and can be) and ignorance of the others in the second instance. When we don’t know people from the “different” group, it is easy to assume the worst of them.

As a Christian, I believe that Jesus would encourage us to be bigger than our tribal allegiances. (As a human being, I would hope that any religious faith would encourage those who follow it, in this same direction.) In illustration of his most important teaching, that the two great commandments are to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves, he told a parable of a despised Samaritan (who his Jewish listeners would have nothing to do with, and through whose territory they would not even pass) helping a wounded Jew who was abandoned by the road side. And Jesus not only passed through Samaria, he stopped and conversed with a Samaritan woman, someone who would have been looked at by Jewish men as a non-person. By his teachings and by his example, Jesus showed us that God’s perspective on humanity is different than the tribalism we so easily embrace.

My question is, can we – not just Christians, but people of any faith – rise above our tribalism (which is worse when wrapped up with religion – which happens with people of all religions) and learn to relate to other human beings who are not members of our “tribe,” as if they were people also created in the image of God? And can we defuse the generalizing and polarizing, and work toward a more accurate understanding of those of other groups, that can only come as we enter into relationship with those others?

The question, it seems, is whether our faith can be a force for peace, or whether it will be a force in the opposite direction.

Might penitance help with peace?

On a couple of occasions in Minnesota, I’ve had the privilege of hearing Pastor Jin Kim of The Church of All Nations (www.cando.org).  One of his phrases especially caught my attention.

He was decrying denominationalism, and the process of splitting off from other Christian groups because of thinking they are wrong or we are better, thinking and acting as if we have the “best” and sure-to-succeed brand of Christianity. As opposed to this triumphalism, he presented the idea of being what he called “penitently Presbyterian.” Being “penitently Presbyterian,” to him, means recognizing that that is his identity (his people), and that it wouldn’t help the unity of Christians to break off in protest against whatever is wrong in Presbyterianism, to start another “better” or more “pure” church. It means admitting that there are plenty of things wrong with the Presbyterian church (and with Presbyterians), to be repentant, and to seek change for the better. And it means relating well to other Christian denominations.

It strikes me that this attitude can be powerfully applied to just about any group or category that I am part of. Can I, for example, be “penitently Christian” in relation to those of other religions? Recognizing that I am “Christian,” but not relating to others in a way that puts them down, minimizes their humanity, acts as if I (we) have a corner on the truth? (This raises an issue that is a core religious issue, that of truth claims, which I will leave for another time; but in being “penitently Christian,” I mean, for example, that we should not persecute and mistreat others for not being Christian - something which happens far too often when Christians are triumphalist.)

Can I, likewise, be “penitently American” in relation to people of other nationalities? My experience would indicate that people of other nationalities like individual Americans well enough, but very much dislike when we act as if everything American is the best, as if we own the world, as if we can fix (or even understand) everyone’s problems, etc. (i.e., when we are triumphally American). Is it possible to be a different kind of American, aware that I don’t have all the answers (or even know what the problems are), that my country has both good and bad, and that I have a lot to learn from everyone else I encounter?

Those two categories (Christian and American) resonate the most with me, due to my experiences of the past 25-plus years living in the Middle East. But one can easily find other applications (for example, being “penitently male,” in relation to women). And I see a definite connection to the movement from ethnocentrism (seeing my people, my group, as the center and pinnacle, and everyone else as a lesser kind of human being) to ethnorelativism (or ethnosensitivity), experiencing myself / ourselves as one among many, and others as every bit as real and significant as myself / ourselves, and in fact, people (those others) that I can learn and benefit from, if only I will be open.

Nationalism, by the way, is clearly rooted in triumphalism. And if one considers the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (or any other intransigent conflict between different peoples), one always finds a stronghold of national, ethnic, and/or religious triumphalism (again, this reflects the “defense” or “polarization” stage of Bennett’s DMIS). For peacemaking (which requires healthy coexistence and interconnection based on mutual respect as human beings), being “penitent” is essential for all parties.