Cultural relativity vs. ethnocentrism
Cultural relativity and ethnocentrism represent two contrasting approaches to understanding diverse cultures. Cultural relativity emphasizes the importance of viewing cultural elements within their own sociocultural contexts, avoiding judgment about their value or significance. This perspective arose largely from the recognition that different cultures are shaped by unique historical, environmental, economic, and political influences. It encourages open-mindedness and the acknowledgment that no culture is inherently superior or inferior to another.
In contrast, ethnocentrism is the tendency to perceive one's own culture as the standard by which to evaluate others, often leading to the belief that one's values and norms are superior. This viewpoint can result in a skewed understanding of other cultures, as ethnocentric individuals may fail to appreciate the complexities and contextual factors that shape different cultural practices. Moral absolutism, a common aspect of ethnocentrism, entails applying one's cultural definitions of good and bad to evaluate the behaviors of others. Overall, these two concepts highlight the challenges and importance of understanding cultural diversity in a respectful and informed manner.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Cultural relativity vs. ethnocentrism
Sociologists generally seek to understand the role of an individual cultural element, such as a particular ritual or religious belief, within an entire cultural system and to avoid making a judgment about it without taking the entire sociocultural system into account. This attitude, called cultural relativism, arose partly because social scientists have seen how the social and cultural characteristics of different cultures and subcultures often can be explained by those cultures’ very different historical, environmental, economic, and political conditions. Maintaining such an attitude also suggests that one will not be quick to judge one culture as superior or inferior to the culture of any other group. The idea of cultural relativism was first proposed by anthropologist Franz Boas in 1887.
This open-minded attitude is assumed to be the opposite of ethnocentrism, a normal tendency to believe that the values, beliefs, norms, and customs of one’s own culture are superior to those of others. Most people unwittingly are socialized into becoming ethnocentric. For example, they are not aware of how strongly they may have become influenced by their parents and schools to believe that their own society’s culture is the one against which all others should be judged. Moral absolutism often is a part of ethnocentrism. Moral absolutists believe that their culture’s definition of good and bad behavior sets the standard by which anyone else’s behavior should be judged. The ethnocentric person is less likely than a cultural relativist to try to understand how the wider sociocultural context of another group may help explain its particular beliefs, behaviors, and values.
Bibliography
Cook, John W. Morality and Cultural Differences. New York: Oxford UP, 1999.
Johnson, Matthew Thomas. Evaluating Culture: Wellbeing, Institutions and Circumstance. New York: Palgrave, 2013.
Kenny, Michael G., and Kirsten Smillie. Stories of Culture and Place: An Introduction to Anthropology. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2015.
Learn, Joshua Rapp. “Meet Franz Boas: An Iconoclastic Anthropologist Who Redefined the Field.” Discover Magazine, 9 Jan. 2022, www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/meet-franz-boas-an-iconoclastic-anthropologist-who-redefined-the-field. Accessed 28 Nov. 2024.
Mantovani, Giuseppe. Exploring Borders: Understanding Culture and Psychology. Philadelphia: Taylor, 2000.
Melé, Domènec, and Carlos Sánchez-Runde. "Cultural Diversity and Universal Ethics in a Global World." Universal Ethics, Cultural Diversity and Globalization: 17th IESE International Symposium. Ed. Melé and Sánchez-Runde. Spec. issue of Journal of Business Ethics 116.4 (2013): 681–87.
Wierzbicka, Anna. Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations. New York: Oxford UP, 1992.