ETHNOCENTRISM
by
Charles Lamson
When children are born they are virtually helpless. Their parents lay them in a crib and after awhile they are able to see around them in their environment. Everything that exists to the child is what is in that environment. People come in and out. Some talk, some touch, some hold, and all go away. When culture developed, it was created by groups of people whose worlds were almost as restricted as the typical child's. They did not know much about the world which was over the next hill or across the river. While they may have known that there were some other people over the hill or across the river, they knew little about them - except that they definitely were not like themselves. Their world was what they could see around them. It is no wonder that little children see themselves as the center of the world (as early cultures did).
Egocentrism. All children (and most adults) are egocentric. That is, they see themselves as central to everything that goes on in their world. Since little children have been waited on "hand and foot" by their parents, and others, their whole lives, it is not hard for them to learn that if they scream loud enough, someone will come wait on them and do their bidding. As they grow older, they become aware of the community in which they live. That place is the center of the earth, because they are not aware of anywhere else yet. Now, they begin to sort out people in their community. There are those who seem to agree that they are the center of the universe, and should be catered to (good people), and those who do not behave that way (bad people). Others begin to call them names - "spoiled" often comes first. Then they move on to "self-centered." the subsequent list of names are probably best left to the imagination. What they all really mean is "egocentric."
Ethnocentrism Defined. Klopf (1998) notes that the term "ethnocentrism" is derived from the Greek words "ethnos," which refers to "nation" and kentron, which refers to "center." Literally then, this term refers to the view that one's country is the center of the universe. Holfstede (1991) argued that ethnocentrism is to a people what egocentrism is to an individual. It is important that we recognize that a people is not necessarily restricted to a large number of people like a country, it can also apply to any group that forms a subculture within a larger culture. It can also apply to the people in a given organization. Most important, it can even apply to a relatively small but identifiable subgroup within an organization division. The marketing division is the central unit of the organization - to the people in the marketing division. If these two ethnocentric divisions cannot learn to work together, the organization is in trouble.
In-groups and Out-groups. An important aspect of ethnocentrism is the creation of in-groups and out-groups. When we become ethnocentric, there must be a "we" and a "they." "We" are the good people, and everyone else in our group is good. Hence in-groups are good. Other people compose out-groups, and they are the "bad people." All cultures are ethnocentric, including subcultures. Hence, identify people in their culture (and in the in-group), and people in all other cultures (and subcultures) as the out-group. This, of course, provides the basis for dislike, hate, discrimination, conflict, and even war between cultural groups in the presence of too much ethnocentrism. Friendly competition between people of different organizational cultures can evolve into hatred and sabotage of each group by the other, hence a major function of managers in organizations is controlling the ethnocentric (as well as egocentric) tendencies of the various subgroups (and individuals) within the organization. Since it exists in all cultures (is pancultural), it is reasonable to conclude that ethnocentrism is a naturally occurring phenomenon in human societies. The key to dealing with it is understanding its various levels.
Levels of Ethnocentrism. There are five levels of ethnocentrism: From the least, to the most extreme, they are equality, sensitivity, indifference, avoidance, and disparagement.
Equality is the lowest level of ethnocentrism. People and groups at this level treat others as equals (do to others as you would have them do to you). While they may notice diversity between themselves and others. they see the other people's customs and ways of thinking and behaving to be equal to their own. Cooperation is likely under these circumstances, as is effective communication and problem solving. In political terms these people treat each other as allies. it is a "we" relationship.
Sensitivity is the second lowest level of ethnocentrism. People at this level see others as culturally diverse, and recognizing that this may be problematic. However, they want to better understand where the others are coming from, and decrease the differences between themselves and the others, if possible. They are willing to compromise with the others, if they are willing to compromise as well. If the people from the other culture are also sensitive, the likelihood of successful communication between the two groups is good. They may be able to cooperate, compromise, and successfully work together. They may be able to convert "they" orientations to "we" orientations, at least on a temporary basis.
Indifference is the so-called moderate level of ethnocentrism. People at the indifferent level do not much care about people from other cultures. They prefer to communicate only with people like themselves. They reject diversity. These people will not go out of their way to cause trouble for people that are different from themselves, but if contact with diverse people is forced upon them by the other people (or by circumstances), they may react very negatively. Organizations undergoing change (which requires cultural adaption), may have serious problems with people at this level. These are not people who should be sent on temporary (or permanent) assignments to other cultures, particularly highly divergent cultures. Nor should they be assigned to work under a person from a distinctly different subculture. If they are, any problems that occur are likely to be attributed by these people to the failings of the culture (or subculture) of the people they are forced to interact with. Extremely negative emotional outcomes are to be expected on the part of these people, when forced to interact (as an equal) with people from cultures other than their own. They can be civil with people from other cultures, however, if they are only expected to do that, and have no additional contact.
Avoidance is the second highest level of ethnocentrism. People at this level actively avoid (and limit) communication with people from other cultures to the maximum extent possible. They are especially averse to intimate contact with such people. In organizations, they will avoid accepting any appointment which would require them to communicate with such individuals. They will actively resist hiring, retaining, or promoting diverse people if put in a position where they must participate in such decisions. They will not normally go out of their way to attack people from other cultures, but will do so if they feel their cultural orientations are being challenged.
Disparagement is the highest level of ethnocentrism. People at this level have no value for, nor do they respect, the cultures of other people. They are actively hostile to such people. They belittle them, and see them as inferior beings. Most cultures have terms for people who are considered inferior to others (mud people, pagans, infidels, untouchables, etc.). That is what people from other cultures are to these people. They reject communication with these people except to disparage them in every way possible. People at this level may be referred to as "bigots." However, they see themselves as defenders of their culture. They are often willing to take measures to do so.
Highly ethnocentric groups see themselves as virtuous and superior, their values as universally correct, and their customs as original and centrally human. In contrast, they see members of other groups to be contemptible, immoral, inferior, and weak. They feel it is their responsibility to try to change those people, and make them like themselves. Most major religions have subgroups which are highly ethnocentric. Not all members of the religious group have these highly ethnocentric orientations, but their most extreme fundamentalist factions frequently do. Fortunately, very few organizational cultures reach such extremes. While it is entirely possible you will find individual people working in organizations, who are at the disparagement level of ethnocentrism, it is unlikely you will find it necessary to work as a subordinate in such an environment.
More about ethnocentrism in the next article. To be continued...
*SOURCE: ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION FOR SURVIVAL 3RD ED. BY VIRGINIA P. RICHMOND, JAMES C. MCCROSKEY AND LINDA L. MCCROSKEY; PGS. 145-148*
END
|
No comments:
Post a Comment