Ethnocentrism is a term used in social sciences and anthropology to describe the act of judging another culture and believing that the values and standards of one's own culture are superior – especially with regards to language, behavior, customs, and religion.[1] These aspects or categories are distinctions that define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.

The term ethnocentrism, deriving from the Greek word ethnos meaning "nation, people, or cultural grouping" and the Latin word centric meaning "center," was first applied in the social sciences by American sociologist William G. Sumner.[2] In his 1906 book, Folkways, Sumner describes ethnocentrism as; "the technical name for 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." He further characterized ethnocentrism as often leading to pride, vanity, the belief in one's own group's superiority, and contempt for outsiders.[3]

Over time ethnocentrism developed alongside the progression of social understandings by people such as social theorist, Theodore W. Adorno. In Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality, he and his colleagues of the Frankfurt School established a broader definition of the term as a result of "in group-out group differentiation", stating that ethnocentrism "combines a positive attitude toward one's own ethnic/cultural group (the in-group) with a negative attitude toward the other ethnic/cultural group (the out-group)". Both of these juxtaposing attitudes are also a result of a process known as social identification and social counter-identification.[4]

Origins and development

The term ethnocentrism is believed by scholars to have been created by Austrian sociologist Ludwig Gumplowicz in the 19th century, although alternate theories suggest that he only popularized the concept as opposed to inventing it.[5][6] He saw ethnocentrism as a phenomenon similar to the delusions of geocentrism and anthropocentrism, defining Ethnocentrism as "the reasons by virtue of which each group of people believed it had always occupied the highest point, not only among contemporaneous peoples and nations, but also in relation to all peoples of the historical past."[5]

Subsequently in the 20th century, American social scientist William G. Sumner proposed two different definitions in his 1906 book Folkways. Sumner stated that "Ethnocentrism is the technical name for this 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."[7] In the War and Other Essays (1911), he wrote that "the sentiment of cohesion, internal comradeship, and devotion to the in-group, which carries with it a sense of superiority to any out-group and readiness to defend the interests of the in-group against the out-group, is technically known as ethnocentrism."[8] According to Boris Bizumic it is a popular misunderstanding that Sumner originated the term ethnocentrism, stating that in actuality he brought ethnocentrism into the mainstreams of anthropology, social science, and psychology through his English publications.[6]

Several theories have been reinforced through the social and psychological understandings of ethnocentrism including T.W Adorno's Authoritarian Personality Theory (1950), Donald T. Campbell's Realistic Group Conflict Theory (1972), and Henri Tajfel's Social Identity Theory (1986). These theories have helped to distinguish ethnocentrism as a means to better understand the behaviors caused by in-group and out-group differentiation throughout history and society.[6]


The classifications of ethnocentrism originate from the studies of anthropology. With its omnipresence throughout history, ethnocentrism has always been a factor in how different cultures and groups related to one another.[9] Examples including how historically, foreigners would be characterized as 'Barbarians', or China would believe their nation to be the 'Empire of the Center' and viewing foreigners as privileged subordinates.[9] However, the anthropocentric interpretations initially took place most notably in the 19th century when anthropologists began to describe and rank various cultures according to the degree to which they had developed significant milestones such as; monotheistic religions, technological advancements, and other historical progressions.

Most rankings were strongly influenced by colonization and the belief to improve societies they colonized, ranking the cultures based on the progression of their western societies and what they classified as milestones. Comparisons where mostly based on what the colonists believed as superior and what their western societies have accomplished. Thomas Macaulay, an English politician in the 19th Century, attempted to validate the opinion that “one shelf of a Western library” had more knowledge then the years of text and literature developed by the Eastern societies.[10] Ideas developed by Charles Darwin has ethnocentric ideals where societies who believed they were superior were most likely to survive and prosper.[10] Edward Said’s orientalist concept represented how Western reactions to non-Western societies were based on an “unequal power relationship” that Western peoples developed due to colonization and the influence it held over non-Western societies.[10][11]

The ethnocentric classification of “primitive” were also used by 19th and 20th century anthropologists and represented how unawareness in cultural and religious understanding changed overall reactions to non-Western societies. Modern anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor wrote about “primitive” societies in Primitive Culture (1871) creating a “civilization” scale where it was implied that ethnic cultures preceded civilized societies.[12] The use of “savage” as a classification is modernly known as “tribal” or “pre-literate” where it was usually referred as a derogatory term as the “civilization” scale became more common.[12] Examples that demonstrate a lack of understanding include when European travelers judged different languages based on that fact that they could not understand it and displayed a negative reaction, or the intolerance displayed by Westerners when exposed to unknown religions and symbolisms.[12] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a German philosopher, justified Western colonization by reasoning that since the non-Western societies were “primitive” and “uncivilized,” their culture and history was not worth conserving and should allow Westernization.[13]

Anthropologist Franz Boas saw the flaws in this formulaic approach to ranking and interpreting cultural development and committed himself to overthrowing this inaccurate reasoning due to many factors involving their individual characteristics. With his methodological innovations, Boas sought to show the error of the proposition that race determined cultural capacity.[14] In his 1911 book The Mind of Primitive Man, Boas wrote that:

It is somewhat difficult for us to recognize that the value which we attribute to our own civilization is due to the fact that we participate in this civilization, and that it has been controlling all our actions from the time of our birth; but it is certainly conceivable that there may be other civilizations, based perhaps on different traditions and on a different equilibrium of emotion and reason, which are of no less value than ours, although it may be impossible for us to appreciate their values without having grown up under their influence.[15]

Together, Boas and his colleagues propagated the certainty that there are no inferior races or cultures. This egalitarian approach introduced the concept of cultural relativism to anthropology, a methodological principle for investigating and comparing societies in as unprejudiced as possible and without using a developmental scale as anthropologists at the time were implementing.[14] Boas and anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski argued that any human science had to transcend the ethnocentric views that could blind any scientist's ultimate conclusions.

Both had also urged anthropologists to conduct ethnographic fieldwork in order to overcome their ethnocentrism. To help, Malinowski would develop the theory of functionalism as guides for producing non-ethnocentric studies of different cultures. Classic examples of anti-ethnocentric anthropology include Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which in time has met with severe criticism for its incorrect data and generalisations, Malinowski's The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia (1929), and Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture (1934). Mead and Benedict were two of Boas's students.[14]

Scholars generally agree that Boas developed his ideas under the influence of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Legend has it that, on a field trip to the Baffin Islands in 1883, Boas would pass the frigid nights reading Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. In that work, Kant argued that human understanding could not be described according to the laws that applied to the operations of nature, and that its operations were therefore free, not determined, and that ideas regulated human action, sometimes independent of material interests. Following Kant, Boas pointed out the starving Eskimos who, because of their religious beliefs, would not hunt seals to feed themselves, thus showing that no pragmatic or material calculus determined their values.[16][17]


Ethnocentrism is believed to be a learned behavior embedded into a variety of beliefs and values of an individual or group.[9]

Due to enculturation, individuals in in-groups have a deeper sense of loyalty and are more likely to following the norms and develop relationships with associated members.[2] Within relation to enculturation, ethnocentrism is said to be a transgenerational problem since stereotypes and similar perspectives can be enforced and encouraged as time progresses.[2] Although loyalty can increase better in-grouper approval, limited interactions with other cultures can prevent individuals to have an understanding and appreciation towards cultural differences resulting in greater ethnocentrism.[2]

The social identity approach suggests that ethnocentric beliefs are caused by a strong identification with one's own culture that directly creates a positive view of that culture. It is theorized by Henri Tajfel and John C. Turner that in order to maintain that positive view, people make social comparisons that cast competing cultural groups in an unfavorable light.[18]

Alternative or opposite perspectives could cause individuals to develop naïve realism and be subject to limitations in understandings.[19] These characteristics can also lead to individuals to become subject to ethnocentrism, when referencing out-groups, and black sheep effect, where personal perspectives contradict those from fellow in-groupers.[19]

Realistic conflict theory assumes that ethnocentrism happens due to "real or perceived conflict" between groups. This also happens when a dominant group may perceive the new members as a threat.[20]Scholars have recently demonstrated that individuals are more likely to develop in-group identification and out-group negatively in response to intergroup competition, conflict, or threat.[2]

Although the causes of ethnocentric beliefs and actions can have varying roots of context and reason, the effects of ethnocentrism has had both negative and positive effects throughout history. The most detrimental effects of ethnocentrism resulting into genocide, apartheid, slavery, and many violent conflicts. Historical examples of these negative effects of ethnocentrism are The Holocaust, the Crusades, the Trail of Tears, and the internment of Japanese Americans. These events were a result of cultural differences reinforced inhumanely by a superior, majority group. In his 1976 book on evolution, The Selfish Gene, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins writes that "blood-feuds and inter-clan warfare are easily interpretative in terms of Hamilton's genetic theory."[21] Simulation-based experiments in evolutionary game theory have attempted to provide an explanation for the selection of ethnocentric-strategy phenotypes.[22][23]

The positive examples of ethnocentrism throughout history have aimed to prohibit the callousness of ethnocentrism and reverse the perspectives of living in a single culture. These organizations can include the formation of the United Nations; aimed to maintain international relations, and the Olympic Games; a celebration of sports and friendly competition between cultures.[9]


A study in New Zealand was used to compare how individuals associate with in-groups and out-groupers and has a connotation to discrimination.[24] Strong in-group favoritism benefits the dominant groups and is different from out-group hostility and/or punishment.[24] A suggested solution is to limit the perceived threat from the out-group that also decreases the likeliness for those supporting the in-groups to negatively react.[24]

Ethnocentrism also influences consumer preference over which goods they purchase. A study that used several in-group and out-group orientations have shown a correlation between national identity, consumer cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism, and the methods consumer choose their products, whether imported or domestic.[25]

See also



  1. McCornack, Steven; Ortiz, Joseph (2017). Choices and Connections: An Introduction to Communication. Boston, New York: Bedford/St.Martin's. p. 109. ISBN 978-1-319-20116-6. OCLC 1102471079.
  2. Shala, Blerim; Cooper, Robin (2014). Thompson, Sherwood (ed.). Encyclopedia of Diversity and Social Justice. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4422-1606-8. OCLC 900277068.
  3. Sumner 1906.
  4. Motyl, Alexander J. (2000). "Ethnocentrism". Encyclopedia of Nationalism (Two-Volume Set ed.). Elsevier. pp. 152–153. ISBN 9780080545240.
  5. Naturalism in Sociology of the Turn of the Century (by Alexander Hofman and Alexander Kovalev), A History of Classical Sociology. Ed. by Igor Kon. Moscow, 1989, p. 84. ISBN 5-01-001102-6
  6. Bizumic, Boris (2014). "Who Coined the Concept of Ethnocentrism? A Brief Report". Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2: 3–10. doi:10.5964/jspp.v2i1.264.
  7. Sumner, William Graham (1906). "Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals". Ginn and Company. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  8. Sumner, William Graham (1911). "War, and Other Essays". Yale University Press. Retrieved 18 January 2019.
  9. "Ethnocentrism", Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2003, doi:10.4135/9781446220375.n79, ISBN 9780761969006, retrieved 22 July 2019
  10. Bagchi, Kaushik (2010). Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History. McNeill, William Hardy, 1917-2016. (2nd ed.). Great Barrington, Mass.: Berkshire Publishing Group. pp. 952–954. ISBN 978-1-84972-976-5. OCLC 707606528.
  11. Bangura, Ahmed S. (2005). "African and Black Orientalism". New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. 4. Horowitz, Maryanne Cline, 1945-. Detroit, MI: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 1679–1680. ISBN 0-684-31377-4. OCLC 55800981.
  12. Moore, John H. (2013). "Ethnocentrism". Encyclopedia of Race and Racism. 2. Mason, Patrick L. (2nd ed.). Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 124–125. ISBN 978-0-02-866195-7. OCLC 825005867.
  13. Da Baets, Antoon (2007). "Eurocentrism" (PDF). In Benjamin, Thomas (ed.). Encyclopedia of Western Colonialism since 1450. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA. pp. 456–461. ISBN 978-0-02-866085-1. OCLC 74840473.
  14. Eriksen, Thomas Hylland (2015). Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. doi:10.2307/j.ctt183p184. ISBN 9781783715176. pp. 10-18. 2nd edition available online.
  15. Boas 1911, pp. 207-208.
  16. Boas, Franz (1911). The Mind of Primitive Man. New York: The Macmillan Company. Retrieved 19 January 2019.
  17. Hitchens, Janine (1994). "Critical Implications of Franz Boas' Theory and Methodology". Dialectical Anthropology. 19 (2/3): 237–253. doi:10.1007/BF01301456. JSTOR 29790560. p. 244.
  18. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Key readings in social psychology. Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp. 94-109). New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.
  19. Sammut, Gordon; Bezzina, Frank; Sartawi, Mohammad (2015). "The spiral of conflict: Naïve realism and the black sheep effect in attributions of knowledge and ignorance". Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. 21 (2): 289–294. doi:10.1037/pac0000098.
  20. Darity, William A. (2008). Ethnocentrism. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Macmillan Reference USA. ISBN 978-0028661179.
  21. Dawkins, Richard (2006). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-19-929115-1.
  22. Hammond, R. A.; Axelrod, R. (2006). "The Evolution of Ethnocentrism". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 50 (6): 926–936. doi:10.1177/0022002706293470.
  23. Hartshorn, Max; Kaznatcheev, Artem; Shultz, Thomas (2013). "The Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation". Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 16 (3). doi:10.18564/jasss.2176.
  24. Perry, Ryan; Priest, Naomi; Paradies, Yin; Barlow, Fiona; Sibley, Chris G (27 March 2017). "Barriers to Multiculturalism: Ingroup Favoritism and Outgroup Hostility are Independently Associated with Policy Opposition". doi:10.31219/ Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  25. Zeugner-Roth, Katharina Petra; Žabkar, Vesna; Diamantopoulos, Adamantios (2015). "Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism as Drivers of Consumer Behavior: A Social Identity Theory Perspective". Journal of International Marketing. 23 (2): 25–54. doi:10.1509/jim.14.0038.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.