"Ethnocentrism." The Columbia encyclopedia 6th ed.. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001–04. <http://www.bartleby.com/65/et/ethnocen.html>
Ethnocentrism is defined as "the feeling that one’s group has a mode of living, values, and patterns of adaptation that are superior to those of other groups."
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
Artifact Eight
de Figueiredo, Rui Jr. (PhD. Stanford Univ.) and Zachary S. Elkins, PhD. UC Berkeley. "Are Patriots Bigots?" American Journal of Political Science. January 2003: 171-190. U. of Texas at Dallas. January 21, 2007. <http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/rui/apb3.1.pdf>
The two professors compared nationalists' and patriots' opinion on immigration. They analysed different surveys with large populations (or universes) and performed cross-tabulation of variables. They discovered that the more nationalistic you are, the more xenophobic against immigrants you are. their definition of nationalist is that they believe in and love the national interests of their nation competitively in relation to other nations. Furthermore, those who are patriotic are not any more xenophobic towards immigrants. They defined patriot as those who love and believe in the nation's institutions (values and systems) in a non-competitive way (14).
Is this then the solution to ethnocentrism? That it is well to promote patriotism, that of love of system, not exclusively, but like that of love among family (fraternity). This sounds feasible, as one may let dissention ring within and without without losing the social balance.
Question 1) Is America promoting patriotism?
Yes... in a way. The US does promote democracy, but also promote the belief that the United States is Democracy itself.
Question 2) What changes could there be made then?
By unifying the population. How? Stop concentrating on the fringe of the right or the fringe of the left. By educating the populace into voicing their own opinions, rather than that of their political parties, so to rapproach the American society to a masses-based governance.
Question 3) Who, where, when would the change take place?
The who will be the first one who is supported by both right and left, or neither, that is, who remains at the center. Where? The US is the most intellectually diverse and rich state in the world. When is anyone's guess... when the Republicans and Democrats stop trying to exert oneupmanship over the other.
Question 4) What about hot button topics, what will happen there?
Beats me.
Question 5) How does this solve the problem of ethnocentrism?
It is evident that ethnocentrism is prevalent, essentially natural, in human life. Impossible to remove it, it must be garnered to be inactive or be mutually beneficial. To promote patriotism is to promote belonging.. (cf. Ignatieff). Love in the system of belonging is different from rejection. A patriot then should love or at least tolerate those with other ways not because they (ie. he or she) think it is inferior or superior, but because they (ibid.) understand that the "outsider" also is part of a nation, and that all nations have self-determination.
The two professors compared nationalists' and patriots' opinion on immigration. They analysed different surveys with large populations (or universes) and performed cross-tabulation of variables. They discovered that the more nationalistic you are, the more xenophobic against immigrants you are. their definition of nationalist is that they believe in and love the national interests of their nation competitively in relation to other nations. Furthermore, those who are patriotic are not any more xenophobic towards immigrants. They defined patriot as those who love and believe in the nation's institutions (values and systems) in a non-competitive way (14).
Is this then the solution to ethnocentrism? That it is well to promote patriotism, that of love of system, not exclusively, but like that of love among family (fraternity). This sounds feasible, as one may let dissention ring within and without without losing the social balance.
Question 1) Is America promoting patriotism?
Yes... in a way. The US does promote democracy, but also promote the belief that the United States is Democracy itself.
Question 2) What changes could there be made then?
By unifying the population. How? Stop concentrating on the fringe of the right or the fringe of the left. By educating the populace into voicing their own opinions, rather than that of their political parties, so to rapproach the American society to a masses-based governance.
Question 3) Who, where, when would the change take place?
The who will be the first one who is supported by both right and left, or neither, that is, who remains at the center. Where? The US is the most intellectually diverse and rich state in the world. When is anyone's guess... when the Republicans and Democrats stop trying to exert oneupmanship over the other.
Question 4) What about hot button topics, what will happen there?
Beats me.
Question 5) How does this solve the problem of ethnocentrism?
It is evident that ethnocentrism is prevalent, essentially natural, in human life. Impossible to remove it, it must be garnered to be inactive or be mutually beneficial. To promote patriotism is to promote belonging.. (cf. Ignatieff). Love in the system of belonging is different from rejection. A patriot then should love or at least tolerate those with other ways not because they (ie. he or she) think it is inferior or superior, but because they (ibid.) understand that the "outsider" also is part of a nation, and that all nations have self-determination.
Artifact Seven
Bruce, Tammy. The Death of Right and Wrong. New York: Random House, 2003.
In The Death of Right and Wrong, Bruce vehemently attacks what she calls "the Left's assault on our values." She lists an exhaustive list of occurances and viewpoints that are caused under auspices of cultural relativism: college professors rationalizing George Washington's and Abraham Lincoln's acts as opportunistic, health officials engendering sexual promiscuity by marginalizing the sanctity of sexual organs by their caricaturization in safe-sex advertisement, the ability of the defense in criminal proceedings to use the "race" card or the "cause martyr" card, and so forth.
The most important thing in all of this was that throughout her book, Bruce was clearly advocating a precise point of view without giving a thought about the opposite of what she was saying. In some of the anecdotes that she shared, she didn't need to, but overall, it was clear that she was either oblivious to or completely ignoring any of the counterpoints that may be offered to her arguments. Such may be the rigidity of human opinion (I cannot be wrong).
But she is entitled to her say within her own book. Nevertheless, observe two points she raises up: 1) American society is attacking morally sound institutions because of proponents of immoral interest-groups, 2) American society is going downwards because of these campaigns. In the first, I find she makes a valid point: that appeasement of norms deemed immoral should not be in place. However, her second point: that the interest-groups are the "army of Satan", and that America is going down the drain, is too scathing to be taken seriously, but does confront with any solution to ethnocentrism: that, 1) there are always naysayers, the solution cannot be universal, and 2) any solution must be implemented progressively and not patronize. Bruce exclaims that pedagogy today focuses on the vilification of the morally just and vindicates those who oppose them.
Questions:
1) Bruce states that pedagogy today already has a goal, and that it is perverse... Would a new education be implemented differently if those who are the future decision-makers learned under this old education?
2) If stacking the deck is not objective, will any solution be objective?
3) Given the extreme of nationalism, what could prevent it that will not at the same time cause a sense of cultural self-inferiority? Oh, yes, patriotism... a very limited definition of patriotism... which I will focus on in the next artifact.
In The Death of Right and Wrong, Bruce vehemently attacks what she calls "the Left's assault on our values." She lists an exhaustive list of occurances and viewpoints that are caused under auspices of cultural relativism: college professors rationalizing George Washington's and Abraham Lincoln's acts as opportunistic, health officials engendering sexual promiscuity by marginalizing the sanctity of sexual organs by their caricaturization in safe-sex advertisement, the ability of the defense in criminal proceedings to use the "race" card or the "cause martyr" card, and so forth.
The most important thing in all of this was that throughout her book, Bruce was clearly advocating a precise point of view without giving a thought about the opposite of what she was saying. In some of the anecdotes that she shared, she didn't need to, but overall, it was clear that she was either oblivious to or completely ignoring any of the counterpoints that may be offered to her arguments. Such may be the rigidity of human opinion (I cannot be wrong).
But she is entitled to her say within her own book. Nevertheless, observe two points she raises up: 1) American society is attacking morally sound institutions because of proponents of immoral interest-groups, 2) American society is going downwards because of these campaigns. In the first, I find she makes a valid point: that appeasement of norms deemed immoral should not be in place. However, her second point: that the interest-groups are the "army of Satan", and that America is going down the drain, is too scathing to be taken seriously, but does confront with any solution to ethnocentrism: that, 1) there are always naysayers, the solution cannot be universal, and 2) any solution must be implemented progressively and not patronize. Bruce exclaims that pedagogy today focuses on the vilification of the morally just and vindicates those who oppose them.
Questions:
1) Bruce states that pedagogy today already has a goal, and that it is perverse... Would a new education be implemented differently if those who are the future decision-makers learned under this old education?
2) If stacking the deck is not objective, will any solution be objective?
3) Given the extreme of nationalism, what could prevent it that will not at the same time cause a sense of cultural self-inferiority? Oh, yes, patriotism... a very limited definition of patriotism... which I will focus on in the next artifact.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Artifact Six
Assogba, Yao. "Réplique - Méfions-nous des extrêmes du relativisme culturel." Université de Québec à Chicoutimi. February 18, 2004. January 20, 2007.
<http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/assogba_yao/replique_relativisme_extreme/replique_relativisme_texte.html>
Prof. Assogba here mentions that "a principle cannot be neutral", that is, every belief causes actions in the real world. To assume an entirely pure view of cultural relativism as being virtuous, he notes, would be to ignore these "social implications". Since vendetta is not practiced by the majority, allowing vendetta will be against the ideal of peaceful multicultural co-habitation. He points to a court case where the defendant of Haitian origin was given a light term for selling tobacco to minors because, according to the judge, "smoking is common in that culture."
Then what solution could there be? Not being ethnocentric oftentimes goes overboard, and overdone politically-correctness places a facade over the reality. Being ethnocentric condones cultural superiority and leads to, well, we know where that leads to... The solution must then be to not go overboard with being non-ethnocentric... But how can that be, if we are so committed to ourselves?
Questions:
1) Can one stay true to himself if he is not ethnocentric?
2) Do you have a solution?
3) Could anyone accept a solution if one exists?
<http://classiques.uqac.ca/contemporains/assogba_yao/replique_relativisme_extreme/replique_relativisme_texte.html>
Prof. Assogba here mentions that "a principle cannot be neutral", that is, every belief causes actions in the real world. To assume an entirely pure view of cultural relativism as being virtuous, he notes, would be to ignore these "social implications". Since vendetta is not practiced by the majority, allowing vendetta will be against the ideal of peaceful multicultural co-habitation. He points to a court case where the defendant of Haitian origin was given a light term for selling tobacco to minors because, according to the judge, "smoking is common in that culture."
Then what solution could there be? Not being ethnocentric oftentimes goes overboard, and overdone politically-correctness places a facade over the reality. Being ethnocentric condones cultural superiority and leads to, well, we know where that leads to... The solution must then be to not go overboard with being non-ethnocentric... But how can that be, if we are so committed to ourselves?
Questions:
1) Can one stay true to himself if he is not ethnocentric?
2) Do you have a solution?
3) Could anyone accept a solution if one exists?
Monday, January 1, 2007
Artifact Five
Limbaugh, David. "On Root Causes and Relativism". Townhall. April 24, 2002. January 1, 2007. <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2002/04/24/on_root_causes_and_relativism>
Limbaugh points out that although the act was morally wrong, many try to justify terrorism or a woman killing her child. This is caused by relativism, which is "the assumption that all human behavior (...) can be explained mechanistically or deterministically". Limbaugh points out that the viewpoint that everyone is just is ridiculous. Which it is.
When talking about ethnocentrism, one must remember that just because a person is naturally biased doesn't mean that any other opinion could be rationally justified. Therefore, although no one could deny that lemmings have a reason to jump off a cliff, that same reason cannot be justified. Accepting anything would be to be morally empty, and that is evil.
Of course, all cultures have their own natural set of morals, but these are always similar, since only through common standards does civilisation progress. For ethnocentrism to develop would be the introduction of the belief that foreign morals are evil, that is, void of any comprehensibility. However, that differs from a heinous act; the act itself can be contributive or harmful to the world. Whatever is harmful could be colloquially referred to as evil. But one must be cautious.
Limbaugh reminds that saying everything is justifiable is ridiculous. If an answer lies in pedagogy, then one must not say: "Accept" but rather "Think".
Questions:
1) Why does the premise of absolutism have to be brought up in any argument?
2) To think is it to accept a command to think?
3) If one must be able to think, then is ethnocentrism not necessary?
Limbaugh points out that although the act was morally wrong, many try to justify terrorism or a woman killing her child. This is caused by relativism, which is "the assumption that all human behavior (...) can be explained mechanistically or deterministically". Limbaugh points out that the viewpoint that everyone is just is ridiculous. Which it is.
When talking about ethnocentrism, one must remember that just because a person is naturally biased doesn't mean that any other opinion could be rationally justified. Therefore, although no one could deny that lemmings have a reason to jump off a cliff, that same reason cannot be justified. Accepting anything would be to be morally empty, and that is evil.
Of course, all cultures have their own natural set of morals, but these are always similar, since only through common standards does civilisation progress. For ethnocentrism to develop would be the introduction of the belief that foreign morals are evil, that is, void of any comprehensibility. However, that differs from a heinous act; the act itself can be contributive or harmful to the world. Whatever is harmful could be colloquially referred to as evil. But one must be cautious.
Limbaugh reminds that saying everything is justifiable is ridiculous. If an answer lies in pedagogy, then one must not say: "Accept" but rather "Think".
Questions:
1) Why does the premise of absolutism have to be brought up in any argument?
2) To think is it to accept a command to think?
3) If one must be able to think, then is ethnocentrism not necessary?
Artifact Four
Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. New York: Viking Penguin, 1961.
An interesting note from Machiavelli concerning conquest that I believe pertains to this topic: Machiavelli points out that for a prince to maintain control of a newly conquered territory that hitherto had kept its own laws, he must keep the customs and taxation intact. It means that regardless of who is in power, as long as the conquered land still retains its own way of life, the people will be content. Modern-day corollaries exist.
Machiavelli was a master in disguising what he really means. The Prince was written to get himself a job and many say that his true beliefs are encased in a oft-forgotten series of analyses on Livius' annals. Regardless, his statement brings forth the question of whether it is the "ETHNICITY" or the "CUSTOMS" that is/are the focal point of ethnocentrism, that is, if it is what the people are that are important, or if it is what the people do. For example, that some people are whites constitutes their ethnicity. Their customs are that they drive cars and pay taxes (assuming that they do). This is interesting to discover.
So: is it that people discriminate because of a difference with what others do?
Does ethnocentrism exist only between societies? What about smaller social groups? (Yes?) Need evidence to discern if it is different with the former.
Furthermore, principles are fought over constantly. Does accepting that others have customs that differs with one's own eliminate acts caused by ethnocentrism?
An interesting note from Machiavelli concerning conquest that I believe pertains to this topic: Machiavelli points out that for a prince to maintain control of a newly conquered territory that hitherto had kept its own laws, he must keep the customs and taxation intact. It means that regardless of who is in power, as long as the conquered land still retains its own way of life, the people will be content. Modern-day corollaries exist.
Machiavelli was a master in disguising what he really means. The Prince was written to get himself a job and many say that his true beliefs are encased in a oft-forgotten series of analyses on Livius' annals. Regardless, his statement brings forth the question of whether it is the "ETHNICITY" or the "CUSTOMS" that is/are the focal point of ethnocentrism, that is, if it is what the people are that are important, or if it is what the people do. For example, that some people are whites constitutes their ethnicity. Their customs are that they drive cars and pay taxes (assuming that they do). This is interesting to discover.
So: is it that people discriminate because of a difference with what others do?
Does ethnocentrism exist only between societies? What about smaller social groups? (Yes?) Need evidence to discern if it is different with the former.
Furthermore, principles are fought over constantly. Does accepting that others have customs that differs with one's own eliminate acts caused by ethnocentrism?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
