Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism

Despite how much humans have in common, cultural differences are far more prevalent than cultural universals. For example, while all cultures have language, analysis of particular language structures and conversational etiquette reveal tremendous differences. In some Middle Eastern cultures, it is common to stand close to others in conversation. North Americans keep more distance and maintain a large “personal space.” Even something as simple as eating and drinking varies greatly from culture to culture. If your professor comes into an early morning class holding a mug of liquid, what do you assume she is drinking? In the United States, it’s most likely filled with coffee, not Earl Grey tea, a favorite in England, or Yak Butter tea, a staple in Tibet.

The way cuisines vary across cultures fascinates many people. Some travelers pride themselves on their willingness to try unfamiliar foods, like celebrated food writer Anthony Bourdain, while others return home expressing gratitude for their native culture’s fare. Often, people in the United States express disgust at other cultures’ cuisine and think that it’s gross to eat meat from a dog or guinea pig, for example, while they don’t question their own habit of eating cows or pigs. Such attitudes are an example of ethnocentrism, or evaluating and judging another culture based on how it compares to one’s own cultural norms. Ethnocentrism, as sociologist William Graham Sumner (1906) described the term, involves a belief or attitude that one’s own culture is better than all others. Almost everyone is a little bit ethnocentric. For example, Americans tend to say that people from England drive on the “wrong” side of the road, rather than on the “other” side. Someone from a country where dog meat is standard fare might find it off-putting to see a dog in a French restaurant—not on the menu, but as a pet and patron’s companion. A good example of ethnocentrism is referring to parts of Asia as the “Far East.” One might question, “Far east of where?”

A high level of appreciation for one’s own culture can be healthy; a shared sense of community pride, for example, connects people in a society. But ethnocentrism can lead to disdain or dislike for other cultures and could cause misunderstanding and conflict. People with the best intentions sometimes travel to a society to “help” its people, because they see them as uneducated or backward—essentially inferior. In reality, these travelers are guilty of cultural imperialism, the deliberate imposition of one’s own cultural values on another culture. Europe’s colonial expansion, begun in the sixteenth century, was often accompanied by a severe cultural imperialism. European colonizers often viewed the people in the lands they colonized as uncultured savages who were in need of European governance, dress, religion, and other cultural practices. A more modern example of cultural imperialism may include the work of international aid agencies who introduce agricultural methods and plant species from developed countries while overlooking indigenous varieties and agricultural approaches that are better suited to the particular region.

Ethnocentrism can be so strong that when confronted with all of the differences of a new culture, one may experience disorientation and frustration. In sociology, we call this culture shock. A traveler from Chicago might find the nightly silence of rural Montana unsettling, not peaceful. An exchange student from China might be annoyed by the constant interruptions in class as other students ask questions—a practice that is considered rude in China. Perhaps the Chicago traveler was initially captivated with Montana’s quiet beauty and the Chinese student was originally excited to see a U.S.-style classroom firsthand. But as they experience unanticipated differences from their own culture, their excitement gives way to discomfort and doubts about how to behave appropriately in the new situation. Eventually, as people learn more about a culture, they recover from culture shock.

Cultural relativism is the practice of assessing a culture by its own standards rather than viewing it through the lens of one’s own culture. Practicing cultural relativism requires an open mind and a willingness to consider and even adapt to new values and norms. However, indiscriminately embracing everything about a new culture is not always possible.

Sometimes when people attempt to rectify feelings of ethnocentrism and develop cultural relativism, they swing too far to the other end of the spectrum. Xenocentrism is the opposite of ethnocentrism, and refers to the belief that another culture is superior to one’s own. (The Greek root word xeno, pronounced “ZEE-no,” means “stranger” or “foreign guest.”) An exchange student who goes home after a semester abroad or a sociologist who returns from the field may find it difficult to associate with the values of their own culture after having experienced what they deem a more upright or nobler way of living.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for sociologists studying different cultures is the matter of keeping a perspective. It is impossible for anyone to keep all cultural biases at bay; the best we can do is strive to be aware of them. Pride in one’s own culture doesn’t have to lead to imposing its values on others. And an appreciation for another culture shouldn’t preclude individuals from studying it with a critical eye.

Schools and communities must examine the role of ethnocentrism and xenocentrism in their interactions with children and families.  This requires deep self-reflection, honesty, and cultural humility. It also requires that schools and communities view families and children from a strengths-based perspective by honoring their cultural capital and funds of knowledge.

Cultural humility is the lifelong practice of self-reflection and learning to understand and respect different cultural perspectives, recognizing one’s own biases, and engaging with others authentically and respectfully. It emphasizes openness, self-awareness, and the commitment to equitable and inclusive interactions.  Cultural humility in education involves teachers acknowledging their own biases, continuously learning about different cultures, and engaging with families and communities in a respectful and collaborative manner.

Cultural capital refers to the non-financial social assets that influence an individual’s ability to succeed in society. These assets include education, intellect, style of speech, dress, and even physical appearance, which can grant social mobility and access to resources and opportunities.  In an educational setting, recognizing and valuing the cultural capital of all families involves acknowledging and leveraging the unique strengths, knowledge, and experiences these families bring to the educational environment.

Funds of knowledge are the diverse cultural and experiential knowledge that students bring from their home and community environments. This concept recognizes these assets as valuable resources for learning, helping educators connect curriculum to students’ real-life experiences and enhancing educational engagement and relevance.

In an ethnographic study in Geneva, Switzerland, Jean-Paul Payet and Fabien Deshayes (2019) found that, while teachers and schools adopt language about multiculturalism and diversity, they oftentimes approach families through a deficit-based lens, especially when it is combined with poor school results and when parents have little knowledge of the institution and its expectations.  Even though a family may view culture and ethnicity as a resource, as a fund of knowledge, the teacher or school may not truly recognize it as such.  This results in distrust of the school and teachers.  It decreases caregiver participation.