Suchergebnisse

The people of Romonum, Truk were found to compare themselves &--apparently--their culture unfavorably with US culture. This seems to contradict the widely held belief that ethnocentrism is universal. Attempts to explain the findings on the basis of flattery, assimilation, love of Amer's, & a general absence of ethnocentrism were unsatisfactory. An analysis of the concept 'ethnocentrism' as advanced by Sumner & as commonly used showed that this concept contains 2 elements: one's group is the standard by which all groups are judged, & each group thinks itself superior to all others. It is maintained that while the 1st requirement of the concept is met by the Trukese & the 2nd is not, no general devaluation of their culture takes place in their minds, & the belief that the notion of own-group superiority must accompany the use of own-group as a standard is incorrect. This false connection is shown to arise from the implicit assumption that the members of a group recognize basic value diff's between themselves & members of other groups. Data are introduced which show that at least in Truk, only specific diff in practice is perceived in foreigners & that general similarity in values is assumed by the Trukese. Given this belief in essential similarity between own & other groups, positive evaluation of some of the diff's which are noted in foreigners is shown to be enentirely compatible with the general concept of ethnocentrism since, far from attacking the basic values of own group, they are in support of those values. AA.

The history and context of study -- The concept of ethnocentrism -- The causes of ethnocentrism : fear and self-aggrandisement -- The causes of ethnocentrism : social factors, biology, and evolution -- The consequences of ethnocentrism -- Integrating the causes and the consequences -- Ethnocentrism in psychology

Examines varied interpretations of ethnocentrism to argue against unreserved acceptance of Richard Rorty's vision of ethnocentrism as an inescapable condition that is roughly synonymous with human finitude. Rorty uses the term ethnocentrism as an epistemological as well as a political position, the latter demanding loyalty to bourgeois democracy. It is maintained that both uses represent a kind of "Other-disregard" that makes liberals question his stand. The philosophical justification of liberal morality is discussed, along with the guilt of "wet" liberals, & Rorty's suggested alternative to the self-deception of moral universalism. It is argued that Rorty's claim that nonliberal ethnocentrisms can be "vicious" ignores a type of viciousness, expressed by both liberals & nonliberals, that involves engagement of the Other in alienness. In spite of the appeal of ethnocentrism to liberals at a time when philosophy appears to have abandoned them, it is contended that wholeheartedly embracing Rorty's position diminishes liberals to a "hypostatized caricature" of who they are, that slowly erodes a commitment to Other-regard. 34 References. J. Lindroth

Ken Booth's study, first published in 1979, investigates the way in which cultural distortions have affected the theory and execution of strategy. Its aim is to illustrate the importance of ethnocentrism in all areas of the subject, to follow through its implications and to suggest approaches to the different problems it poses. Insights are offered into the character of a number of important issues in Cold War international politics, including the superpower arms race, détente, the Middle Eastern crisis, the Soviet arms build-up and the SALT talks. In light of the cost of modern warfa.

This study collapsed ingroup bias into two types: a classic Sumnerian type, in which favorable perceptions of the ingroup were linked to unfavorable perceptions of the outgroup, & a simple ingroup bias type that consisted of all other instances of ingroup superiority. Simple ingroup bias was the more common type among a General Social Survey (GSS) national probability sample of 1,119 non-Jewish whites who rated Jews, blacks, Asians, & Hispanics on five traits. The two types appear to represent different points on an ethnocentrism continuum; thus, researchers who do not distinguish between them may underestimate the possible impact of ethnocentrism. The generally low levels of classic ethnocentrism did increase for people low in education or high in authoritarianism or social distance. The research also tested an ethnocentrism typology. Many respondents fell into two nonclassic ethnocentrism categories: positivity (where own-group & other-group ratings are both favorable) & neutral matching. 9 Tables, 34 References. Adapted from the source document.

This study collapsed ingroup bias into two types: a classic Sumnerian type, in which favorable perceptions of the ingroup were linked to unfavorable perceptions of the outgroup, and a simple ingroup bias type that consisted of all other instances of ingroup superiority. Simple ingroup bias was the more common type among a General Social Survey (GSS) national probability sample of 1,119 non‐Jewish whites who rated Jews, blacks, Asians, and Hispanics on five traits. The two types appear to represent different points on an ethnocentrism continuum; thus, researchers who do not distinguish between them may underestimate the possible impact of ethnocentrism. The generally low levels of classic ethnocentrism did increase for people low in education or high in authoritarianism or social distance. The research also tested an ethnocentrism typology. Many respondents fell into two nonclassic ethnocentrism categories: positivity (where own‐group and other‐group ratings are both favorable) and neutral matching.