Ethnocentrism as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Ethnocentrism, two forms of ethnocentrism The tendency to evaluate other cultures through the lens of one's own

Ethnocentrism is a general concept or point of view of individuals, according to which one's own people, social stratum, one's own race or some one's own group is put forward in a central place as superior to all others and prevailing. The concept of "ethnocentrism" is associated with both positive consequences (to a lesser extent) - for example, patriotism, a sense of national dignity, and negative (mostly) - discrimination, nationalism, chauvinism, segregation.

Ethnocentrism is characteristic of every group that is to some extent independent, independent and aware of its identity. Ethnocentric positions are "beneficial" to the group itself in that with their help the group determines its place among other groups, strengthens its identity and preserves its cultural features. However, extreme forms of ethnocentrism are associated with religious fanaticism and racism and even lead to violence and aggression (Saressalo, 1977, 50-52) (Saressalo).

The concept of ethnocentrism also includes the concept of "stereotype". In this case, these are generalized, schematic representations of other groups, their culture and properties adopted by a group. The stereotypical way of responding is a long-term, stable and, despite new, even very recent experience, an unshakable idea of the behavioral traits of other people or groups, as well as a firm opinion about any organizations or social formations (cf. Hartfeld, 1976) (Hartfield). Stereotypes are like prejudices, they do not need logical justification, and even their objectivity and plausibility are not always indisputable (Saressalo, 1977, 50).

The American sociologist William G. Sumner (1960) (William G. Stunner) studied the emergence of ethnocentrism among primitive peoples and came to the conclusion that almost every one of these peoples claimed a special place, "dating" it back to the creation of the world. This is evidenced, for example, by the following Indian legend narrated by M. Herskovits (1951) (M. Herskovits):

“To crown his creative work, God fashioned three human figures from dough and placed them in a brazier. After some time, he impatiently took out the first little man from the stove, whose appearance was too light and therefore unpleasant. It was "unbaked" inside as well. Soon God got the second one; this one was a success: it was beautifully brown on the outside and "ripe" on the inside. With joy God made him the founder of the Indian race. But the third, unfortunately, during this time was very burnt and turned completely black. The first character became the founder of the white family, and the last - the black one.

Such legends and myths are characteristic of the prejudices of an ethnic group. Under prejudice, according to the definition of the American scientist W. Weaver (1954) (W. Weaver), they mean "an assessment of social situations on the basis of pre-mastered ideas and values, without empirical evidence or a rational and logical course of reasoning." Based on mythological thinking, own group has all the virtues; she lives for the joy of God. The characteristic features of each such group, as mentioned above, date back to the creation of the world and are either a gift or a mistake of the creator. At the same time, one's own group, of course, is ranked among the "chosen people." Such a view contains racial motivation; connected with it is the belief that the successful activity of people depends on their biological quality. The logical conclusion from such a concept is the following: certain people, according to their biological racial qualities, are initially allegedly more gifted and talented than others, more perfect, both physically and mentally, and therefore more suitable and capable for leading and managing the world and for occupying higher social positions. in society (E. Asp, 1969) (Asp).

The content of the article

- preference for one's ethnic group, manifested in the perception and evaluation of life phenomena through the prism of its traditions and values. Term ethnocentrism introduced in 1906 by W. Sumner, who believed that people tend to see the world in such a way that their own group is at the center of everything, and all others are measured with it or evaluated with reference to it.

Ethnocentrism as a socio-psychological phenomenon.

Ethnocentrism has existed throughout human history. Written in the 12th century Tales of Bygone Years meadows, which, according to the chronicler, supposedly have a custom and law , are opposed to the Vyatichi, Krivichi, Drevlyans, who have neither a real custom nor a law.

Anything can be considered a reference: religion, language, literature, food, clothing, etc. There is even the opinion of the American anthropologist E. Leach, according to which, the question of whether a particular tribal community burns or buries its dead, whether their houses are round or rectangular, may have no other functional explanation than that each nation wants to show that it different from its neighbors and superior to them. In turn, these neighbors, whose customs are directly opposite, are also convinced that their way of doing anything is right and best.

American psychologists M. Brewer and D. Campbell identified the main indicators of ethnocentrism:

perception of elements of one's culture (norms, roles and values) as natural and correct, and elements of other cultures as unnatural and incorrect;

considering the customs of one's group as universal;

the idea that it is natural for a person to cooperate with members of his group, to help them, to prefer his group, be proud of it and not trust and even be at enmity with members of other groups.

The last of the criteria identified by Brewer and Campbell testifies to the ethnocentrism of the individual. Regarding the first two, some ethnocentric people recognize that other cultures have their own values, norms, and customs, but are inferior to the traditions of "their" culture. However, there is also a more naive form of absolute ethnocentrism, when its bearers are convinced that "their" traditions and customs are universal for all people on Earth.

Soviet social scientists believed that ethnocentrism is a negative social phenomenon, equivalent to nationalism and even racism. Many psychologists consider ethnocentrism a negative socio-psychological phenomenon, manifested in the tendency to reject other groups in combination with an overestimation of one's own group, and define it as failure to consider the behavior of other people in a manner different from that dictated by one's own cultural environment.

But is it possible? An analysis of the problem shows that ethnocentrism is an inevitable part of our life, a normal consequence of socialization ( cm. Also SOCIALIZATION) and introducing a person to culture. Moreover, like any other socio-psychological phenomenon, ethnocentrism cannot be considered as something only positive or only negative, and a value judgment about it is unacceptable. Although ethnocentrism often proves to be an obstacle to intergroup interaction, at the same time it performs a useful function for the group to maintain a positive ethnic identity and even preserve the integrity and specificity of the group. For example, when studying Russian old-timers in Azerbaijan, N.M. Lebedeva, it was revealed that the decrease in ethnocentrism, which manifested itself in a more positive perception of Azerbaijanis, testified to the erosion of the unity of the ethnic group and led to an increase in people leaving for Russia in search of the necessary feeling " We".

Flexible ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism initially does not carry a hostile attitude towards other groups and can be combined with a tolerant attitude towards intergroup differences. On the one hand, bias is mainly the result of one's own group being considered good, and to a lesser extent it arises from the feeling that all other groups are bad. On the other hand, an uncritical attitude may not extend to All properties and spheres of life of their group.

In the course of research by Brewer and Campbell in three countries of East Africa, ethnocentrism was found in thirty ethnic communities. Representatives of all nations treated their group with greater sympathy, more positively assessed its moral virtues and achievements. But the degree of expression of ethnocentrism varied. When evaluating group achievements, the preference of one's own group was significantly weaker than when evaluating other aspects. A third of the communities rated the achievements of at least one of the outgroups higher than their own achievements. Ethnocentrism, in which the qualities of one's own group are fairly objectively assessed and attempts are made to understand the characteristics of a foreign group, is called benevolent, or flexible.

Comparison of one's own and other groups in this case takes place in the form comparisons- peace-loving non-identity, according to the terminology of the Soviet historian and psychologist B.F. Porshnev. It is the acceptance and recognition of differences that can be considered the most acceptable form of social perception in the interaction of ethnic communities and cultures at the present stage of human history.

In interethnic comparison in the form of comparison, one's own group may be preferred in some spheres of life, and another's - in others, which does not exclude criticism of the activities and qualities of both and is manifested through the construction complementary images. A number of studies in the 1980s and 1990s found a fairly clear tendency among Moscow students to compare "typical American" and "typical Russian". The stereotype of an American included business (entrepreneurship, diligence, conscientiousness, competence) and communicative (sociability, looseness) characteristics, as well as the main features of "Americanism" (striving for success, individualism, high self-esteem, pragmatism).

Comparison of ethnic groups in the form of opposition.

Ethnocentrism is not always benevolent. Interethnic comparison can be expressed in the form opposition, suggesting at least a bias towards other groups. An indicator of such a comparison is polar images when members of an ethnic group attribute only positive qualities to themselves, and only negative qualities to “outsiders”. The contrast is most pronounced in mirror perception when members two conflicting groups attribute identical positive traits to themselves, and identical vices to rivals. For example, one's own group is perceived as highly moral and peaceful, its actions are explained by altruistic motives, and a foreign group is perceived as an aggressive "evil empire" pursuing its own selfish interests. It was the phenomenon of mirror reflection that was discovered during the Cold War in the distorted perceptions of Americans and Russians of each other. When the American psychologist Uri Bronfennbrenner visited the Soviet Union in 1960, he was surprised to hear from his interlocutors the same words about America that the Americans spoke about the Soviets. Ordinary Soviet people believed that the US government was made up of aggressive militarists, that it was exploiting and oppressing the American people, that it could not be trusted diplomatically.

A similar phenomenon was repeatedly described in the future, for example, when analyzing reports in the Armenian and Azerbaijani press about the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

The tendency towards interethnic opposition can also manifest itself in a more smoothed form, when qualities that are practically identical in meaning are evaluated differently depending on whether they are attributed to one's own or another group. People choose a positive label when they describe their own group trait and a negative label when they describe the same trait of an outgroup: Americans perceive themselves as friendly and uninhibited, while the British consider them pushy and cheeky. And vice versa - the British believe that they are characterized by restraint and respect for the rights of other people, and the Americans call the British cold snobs.

Some researchers see the main reason for varying degrees of ethnocentricity in the characteristics of a particular culture. There is evidence that members of collectivistic cultures who are closely related to their group are more ethnocentric than members of individualistic cultures. However, a number of psychologists have found that it is in collectivist cultures, where the values of modesty and harmony prevail, that intergroup bias is less pronounced, for example, Polynesians show less preference for their group than Europeans.

militant ethnocentrism.

The degree of manifestation of ethnocentrism is more significantly influenced not by cultural features, but by social factors - the social structure, the objective nature of interethnic relations. Members of minority groups - small in size and below others in status - are more likely to prefer their own group. This applies to both ethnic migrants and "small nations". In the presence of a conflict between ethnic communities and in other unfavorable social conditions, ethnocentrism can manifest itself in very vivid forms and, although it helps to maintain a positive ethnic identity, it becomes dysfunctional for the individual and society. With such ethnocentrism, which received the name militant or inflexible , people not only judge other people's values based on their own, but also impose them on others.

Militant ethnocentrism expresses itself in hatred, mistrust, fear, and blaming other groups for their own failures. Such ethnocentrism is also unfavorable for the personal growth of the individual, because love for the motherland is brought up from his position, and the child, as the American psychologist E. Erickson wrote, not without sarcasm: it is precisely the emergence of this species that was an event of cosmic significance and that it is precisely it that is destined by history to stand guard over the only correct variety of humanity under the leadership of a select elite and leaders.

For example, the inhabitants of China in ancient times were brought up in the belief that it was their homeland - the "navel of the Earth" and there is no doubt about this, since the sun rises and sets at the same distance from the Middle Kingdom. Ethnocentrism in its great-power version was also characteristic of Soviet ideology: even small children in the USSR knew that "the Earth, as you know, begins from the Kremlin."

Delegitization as an extreme degree of ethnocentrism.

Examples of ethnocentric delegitimization are well known, such as the attitude of the first European settlers towards the native inhabitants of America and the attitude towards "non-Aryan" peoples in Nazi Germany. Ethnocentrism, embedded in the racist Aryan supremacist ideology, proved to be the mechanism used to hammer into the heads of the Germans the idea that Jews, Gypsies, and other minorities were “subhumans” with no right to life.

Ethnocentrism and the process of development of intercultural communication.

Almost all people are ethnocentric to one degree or another, therefore, each person, realizing his own ethnocentrism, should strive to develop flexibility in himself when interacting with other people. This is achieved through development. intercultural competence, that is, not only a positive attitude towards the presence of various ethnic groups in society, but also the ability to understand their representatives and interact with partners from other cultures.

The process of development of ethno-cultural competence is described in M. Bennett's model of mastering a foreign culture, which identifies six stages that reflect the attitude of individuals to the differences between native and foreign ethnic groups. According to this model, a person goes through six stages of personal growth: three ethnocentric (denial of intercultural differences; protection from differences with their assessment in favor of one's group; minimization of differences) and three ethnorelativistic (recognition of differences; adaptation to differences between cultures or ethnic groups; integration, etc.). i.e. the application of ethnorelativism to one's own identity).

Denial of intercultural differences typical for people who do not have experience of communication with representatives of other cultures. They are not aware of the differences between cultures, their own picture of the world is regarded as universal (this is a case of absolute, but not militant ethnocentrism). At the stage protection from cultural differences people perceive them as a threat to their existence and try to resist them, considering the values and norms of their culture as the only true ones, and others as “wrong”. This stage may manifest itself in militant ethnocentrism and be accompanied by obsessive calls to be proud of one's own culture, which is seen as an ideal for all mankind. Minimizing Cross-Cultural Differences means that individuals recognize them and do not evaluate them negatively, but define them as insignificant.

Ethnorelativism begins with the stage recognition of ethnocultural differences, acceptance by the individual of the right to a different view of the world. People in this stage of benevolent ethnocentrism experience joy in discovering and exploring differences. At the stage adaptation to intercultural differences the individual is able not only to be aware of intercultural differences, but also to behave in accordance with the rules of a foreign culture, without experiencing discomfort. As a rule, it is this stage that indicates the achievement of ethnocultural competence by a person.

Tatiana Stefanenko

Literature:

Brewer M.B., Campbell D.T. Ethnocentrism and Intergroup Attitudes: East African Evidence. N.Y., Halsted/Wiley, 1976
Porshnev B.F. Social psychology and history. M., "Science", 1979
Bennett M.J. A Developmental Approach to Training for Intercultural Sensitivity// International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 1986 Vol. 10. P.179–196
Lebedeva N.M. Social psychology of ethnic migrations. M., Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS, 1993
Erickson E. Identity: youth and crisis. M., Progress Publishing Group, 1996
Myers D. Social Psychology. St. Petersburg, "Peter", 1997
Leech E. Culture and Communication: The Logic of the Interrelation of Symbols. On the use of structural analysis in social anthropology. M., "Eastern Literature", 2001
Matsumoto D. Psychology and culture. SPb., "prime-EUROZNAK", 2002
Berry J.W., Poortinga Y.H., Segall M.H., Dasen P.R. Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge etc., Cambridge University Press, 2002

PLAN

INTRODUCTION 2

GROUP 3

ETHNOCENTRISM 7

CONCLUSION 17

REFERENCES 19

INTRODUCTION

A person as a person is formed in a group, he is a direct and indirect spokesman for intra-group relations. The significance of the group for the individual, first of all, is that the group is a certain system of activity, given by its place in the system of social division of labor. The group itself acts as the subject of a certain type of activity and through it is included in the entire system of social relations. In this regard, the group acts as the most complete reflection of the fundamental features of the social system within which it is formed and functions.

The problem of the group as the most important form of social association of people in the process of joint activity and communication is one of the central ones in social psychology. Interest in the group is due to a number of fundamental points. On the one hand, the personality, its self-consciousness, the values and norms adopted by it, the system of ideas about the world are formed in the process of including a person throughout his life in the activities of various groups. His mental warehouse, personal content are formed at the intersection of various group influences. Consequently, it is impossible to understand a person, to study the process of his development, without referring to the analysis of those groups of which he is a member. On the other hand, the group itself is not a simple sum of people included in it, but represents, from the moment of its psychological emergence, an independent integral phenomenon with its own characteristics, not reducible to the individual characteristics of its members, its own history of development and patterns of life.

GROUP

A group is a community limited in size, distinguished from the social whole on the basis of certain characteristics (the nature of the activity performed, social or class affiliation, structure, composition, level of development, etc.).

Social psychology has made repeated attempts to construct a classification of groups. The American researcher Juwenck singled out seven different principles on the basis of which such classifications were built. These principles were very diverse: the level of cultural development, the type of structure, tasks and functions, the predominant type of contacts in the group. However, a common feature of all the proposed classifications is the forms of group life.

The classification of groups can be visualized in the form of a diagram. (Fig.1)

For social psychology, the division of groups into conditional and real is significant. She focuses her research on real groups. But among these real ones there are also those that mainly appear in general psychological research - real laboratory groups. In contrast to them, there are real natural groups. Socio-psychological analysis is possible with respect to both types of real groups. However, real natural groups are of the greatest importance. In turn, these natural groups are subdivided into the so-called "large" and "small" groups.

A small group is understood as a small group, whose members are united by common social activities and are in direct personal communication, which is the basis for the emergence of emotional relationships, group norms and group processes.

The expediency of studying groups is obvious, because. they are a convenient model for studying the processes of suggestibility, conformity, workability, communication, etc. for a certain period of time.

Small group laboratory studies can be approximated to real life conditions in two different ways. The first way goes along the path of creating experiments that isolate all the major and minor attributes of these situations. The second method of convergence follows the path of not only organizing the conditions of the experiment, but also includes the study of real contact groups in “life” (simulated) conditions of interaction.

And what is valuable, in laboratory studies of small groups, the general psychological principle of selecting subjects is observed: they must be of the same age, gender, and a similar level of education.

As for large groups, the question of their study is much more complicated and requires special consideration. It is important to emphasize that these “large” groups are also unequally represented in social psychology: some of them have a solid tradition of research in the West (these are mainly large, unorganized, spontaneously arisen “groups”, the very term “group” in relation to which is very conditional), while others, like classes, nations are much less represented in social psychology as an object of study. In groups of the first type, the processes occurring in them are well described in some sections of social psychology, in particular, in the study of methods of influence in situations outside of collective behavior.

In the same way, small groups can be divided into two varieties: emerging groups, already set by external social requirements, but not yet united by joint activity in the full sense of the word, and collectives, i.e. groups of a higher level of development associated with specific types of social activities. Groups of the first variety can be designated as "becoming".

Traditionally, in social psychology, some parameters of the group are studied: the composition of the group (or its composition), the structure of the group, group processes, group values, norms, and the system of sanctions. Each of these parameters can take on a completely different meaning, depending on the general approach to the group that is implemented in the study. So, for example, the composition of the group can, in turn, be described in terms of completely different indicators, depending on whether, in each specific case, it means, for example, the age professional or social characteristics of the group members. Obviously, a single recipe for describing the composition of a group cannot be given, especially in connection with the diversity of real groups. in each specific case, it is necessary to start with which real group is chosen as the object of study.

The structure of large groups, which include small ones, is diverse:

social classes;

Various ethnic groups;

professional groups;

Age groups (for example, young people, women, the elderly, etc. can be considered as a group).

Directly general qualities of the group:

1. Integrativity - a measure of unity, fusion, commonality of group members with each other, (lack of integrativity - disunity, disintegration).

2. The microclimate determines the well-being of each person in the group, its satisfaction with the group, the comfort of being in it.

3. Reference - the degree of acceptance by the members of the group of group standards.

4. Leadership - the degree of the leading influence of certain members of the group on the group as a whole in the direction of the implementation of group tasks.

5. Intragroup activity - a measure of the activation of the group's constituent personalities.

6. Intergroup activity - the degree of influence of this group on other groups.

In addition to these qualities, the following are also considered:

The orientation of the group is the social value of the goals adopted by it, the motives of activity, value orientations and group norms;

Organization - the real ability of the group to self-government;

Emotionality - interpersonal relationships of an emotional nature, the prevailing emotional mood of the group;

Intellectual communication - the nature of interpersonal perception and the establishment of mutual understanding, finding a common language;

Volitional communication is the ability of a group to withstand difficulties and obstacles, its reliability in extreme situations.

ethnocentrism

From the point of view of social psychology, three main lines of research into the psychology of classes can be identified:

psychological characteristics of different specific classes (workers, peasants, bourgeoisie, etc.);

characterization of the class psychology of different classes of the same epoch;

correlation between class psychology and the psychology of individual class members.

The elements of class psychology include: class needs, class interests, social feelings (that is, certain characteristics of the emotional states inherent in the group), habits, customs, and traditions of the class.

The psychological characteristics of ethnic groups have the following sides:

the most persistent part is the mental composition (national character, temperament, traditions and customs);

emotional sphere (national or ethnic feelings).

Ethnocentrism is a preference for one's ethnic group, manifested in the perception and evaluation of life phenomena through the prism of its traditions and values. The term "ethnocentrism" was introduced in 1906 by W. Sumner, who believed that people tend to see the world in such a way that their own group is at the center of everything, and all others are measured with it or evaluated with reference to it.

Ethnocentrism as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Ethnocentrism has existed throughout human history. Written in the 12th century "The Tale of Bygone Years" meadows, which, according to the chronicler, supposedly have a custom and law, are opposed to the Vyatichi, Krivichi, Drevlyans, who have neither a real custom nor a law.

Anything can be considered a reference: religion, language, literature, food, clothing, etc. There is even the opinion of the American anthropologist E. Leach, according to which, the question of whether a particular tribal community burns or buries its dead, whether their houses are round or rectangular, may have no other functional explanation, except that each nation wants to show that he is different from his neighbors and superior to them. In turn, these neighbors, whose customs are directly opposite, are also convinced that their way of doing anything is right and best.

American psychologists M. Brewer and D. Campbell identified the main indicators of ethnocentrism:

perception of elements of one's culture (norms, roles and values) as natural and correct, and elements of other cultures as unnatural and incorrect;

considering the customs of one's group as universal;

the idea that it is natural for a person to cooperate with members of his group, to help them, to prefer his group, be proud of it and not trust and even be at enmity with members of other groups.

Soviet social scientists believed that ethnocentrism is a negative social phenomenon, equivalent to nationalism and even racism. Many psychologists consider ethnocentrism a negative socio-psychological phenomenon, manifested in the tendency to reject other groups, combined with an overestimation of one's own group, and define it as the inability to view the behavior of other people in a manner different from that dictated by one's own cultural environment.

But is it possible? Analysis of the problem shows that ethnocentrism is an inevitable part of our life, a normal consequence of socialization and familiarization of a person with culture. Moreover, like any other socio-psychological phenomenon, ethnocentrism cannot be considered as something only positive or only negative, and a value judgment about it is unacceptable. Although ethnocentrism often proves to be an obstacle to intergroup interaction, at the same time it performs a useful function for the group to maintain a positive ethnic identity and even preserve the integrity and specificity of the group. For example, when studying Russian old-timers in Azerbaijan, N.M. Lebedeva, it was revealed that the decrease in ethnocentrism, manifested in a more positive perception of Azerbaijanis, testified to the erosion of the unity of the ethnic group and led to an increase in the departure of people to Russia in search of the necessary sense of "We".

Flexible ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism initially does not carry a hostile attitude towards other groups and can be combined with a tolerant attitude towards intergroup differences. On the one hand, bias is mainly the result of one's own group being considered good, and to a lesser extent it arises from the feeling that all other groups are bad. On the other hand, an uncritical attitude may not extend to all properties and spheres of life of one's group.

As a cause of ethnic conflicts... Abstract >> Culture and art

other cultures or subcultures. ethnocentrism unites the group, justifies sacrifice... it is impossible for him to display patriotism. ethnocentrism- a necessary condition for the appearance ..., extreme manifestations are possible ethnocentrism e.g. nationalism, contempt for...

From the point of view of social psychology, three main lines of research into the psychology of classes can be identified:

· psychological characteristics of different specific classes (workers, villagers, bourgeoisie, etc.);

Characteristics of the class psychology of different classes of the same era;

· the ratio of class psychology and the psychology of individual members of the class.

The psychological characteristics of ethnic groups have the following sides:

The most persistent part is the mental composition (national character, temperament, traditions and customs);

Emotional sphere (national or ethnic feelings).

Anything can be considered a reference: religion, language, literature, food, clothing, etc. There is even the opinion of the American anthropologist E. Leach, according to which, the question of whether a particular tribal community burns or buries its dead, whether their houses are round or rectangular, may have no other functional explanation, except that each nation wants to show that he is different from his neighbors and superior to them. In turn, these neighbors, whose customs are directly opposite, are also convinced that their way of doing anything is correct and the best.

American psychologists M. Brewer and D. Campbell identified the main indicators of ethnocentrism:

perception of elements of one's own culture (norms, roles and values) as natural and correct, and elements of other cultures as unnatural and incorrect;

Considering the customs of one's group as universal;

The idea that it is natural for a person to cooperate with members of his group, to help them, to prefer his group, be proud of it and not trust and even be at enmity with members of other groups.

Soviet social scientists believed that ethnocentrism is a negative social phenomenon, equivalent to nationalism and even racism. Many psychologists consider ethnocentrism a negative socio-psychological phenomenon, manifested in the tendency to reject other groups, combined with an overestimation of one's own group, and define it as the inability to view the behavior of other people in a manner different from that dictated by one's own cultural environment.

Comparison of one's own and other groups in this case takes place in the form of comparison - peace-loving non-identity, in the terminology of the Soviet historian and psychologist B.F. Porshnev. It is the acceptance and recognition of differences that can be considered the most acceptable form of social perception in the interaction of ethnic communities and cultures at the present stage of human history.

In interethnic comparison in the form of comparison, one's own group may be preferred in some spheres of life, and someone else's - in others, which does not exclude criticism of the activities and qualities of both and is manifested through the construction of complementary images. A number of studies in the 1980s and 1990s found a rather clear tendency among Moscow students to compare "typical Americans" and "typical Russians." The stereotype of an American included business (entrepreneurship, diligence, conscientiousness, competence) and communicative (sociability, looseness) characteristics, as well as the main features of "Americanism" (striving for success, individualism, high self-esteem, pragmatism).

Among compatriots, Muscovites, first of all, noted positive humanistic characteristics: hospitality, friendliness, humanity, kindness, responsiveness. A comparison of the qualities that make up the two stereotypes shows that they are complementary images. However, a comparison of one's own and another's groups does not at all indicate a complete absence of ethnocentrism. In our case, Moscow students demonstrated a preference for their group: they attributed traits that are highly valued in Russian culture to a typical representative of it, and qualities that are formally positive, but are at the bottom of the hierarchy of personality traits as values, to an American.

Comparison of ethnic groups in the form of opposition. Ethnocentrism is not always benevolent. Interethnic comparison can be expressed in the form of opposition, which implies at least a bias towards other groups. An indicator of such a comparison are polar images, when members of an ethnic group ascribe only positive qualities to themselves, and only negative qualities to "outsiders". The opposition is most clearly manifested in mirror perception, when members of two conflicting groups attribute identical positive traits to themselves, and identical vices to their rivals. For example, one's own group is perceived as highly moral and peace-loving, its actions are explained by altruistic motives, and a foreign group is perceived as an aggressive "evil empire" pursuing its own selfish interests. It was the phenomenon of mirror reflection that was discovered during the Cold War in the distorted perceptions of Americans and Russians of each other. When the American psychologist Uri Bronfennbrenner visited the Soviet Union in 1960, he was surprised to hear from his interlocutors the same words about America that the Americans spoke about the Soviets. Ordinary Soviet people believed that the US government was made up of aggressive militarists, that it was exploiting and oppressing the American people, that it could not be trusted diplomatically.

A similar phenomenon was repeatedly described in the future, for example, when analyzing reports in the Armenian and Azerbaijani press about the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Ethnocentric reassessment of one's own culture is found in many peoples in different regions of the world. The high appreciation of one's own culture and the belittling of foreign cultures are based on the fact that many peoples and tribes at an early stage of their history designated themselves as "people", and everything that was outside their culture was designated as "inhuman", "barbarian". ". Such beliefs are found among many peoples in all regions of the world: among the Eskimos of North America, among the African Bantu tribe, among the Asian San people, in South America among the Munduruku people. The feeling of superiority was also pronounced at one time among the European colonizers: most Europeans considered the non-European inhabitants of the colonies as socially, culturally and racially inferior, and their own way of life, of course, as the only true one. If the natives had other religious ideas, they became pagans, if they had their own sexual ideas and taboos, they were called immoral, if they did not try hard to work, then they were considered lazy, if they did not share the opinion of the colonialists, they were called stupid. Proclaiming their own standards as absolute, the Europeans condemned any deviation from the European way of life, while not allowing the idea that the natives could have their own standards.

militant ethnocentrism. The degree of expression of ethnocentrism is more significantly influenced not by the characteristics of culture, but by social factors - the social structure, the objective nature of interethnic relations. Representatives of minority groups - small in size and below others in status - are more likely to prefer their own group. This applies to both ethnic migrants and "small nations". In the presence of a conflict between ethnic communities and in other unfavorable social conditions, ethnocentrism can manifest itself in very vivid forms and - although it helps to maintain a positive ethnic identity - becomes dysfunctional for the individual and society. With this kind of ethnocentrism, which has been called militant or inflexible, people not only judge other people's values based on their own, but also impose them on others.

For example, the inhabitants of China in ancient times were brought up in the belief that it was their homeland - the "navel of the Earth" and there is no doubt about this, since the sun rises and sets at the same distance from the Middle Kingdom. Ethnocentrism in its great-power variant was also characteristic of Soviet ideology: even small children in the USSR knew that "the Earth, as you know, begins with the Kremlin."

Examples of ethnocentric delegitimization are well-known - these are the attitude of the first European settlers towards the native inhabitants of America and the attitude towards "non-Aryan" peoples in Nazi Germany. Ethnocentrism, embedded in the racist ideology of Aryan supremacy, proved to be the mechanism used to hammer into the heads of the Germans the idea that Jews, Gypsies and other minorities were "sub-humans" with no right to life.

Ethnocentrism and the process of development of intercultural communication. Almost all people are ethnocentric to one degree or another, therefore, each person, realizing his own ethnocentrism, should strive to develop flexibility in himself when interacting with other people. This is achieved in the process of developing intercultural competence, that is, not only a positive attitude towards the presence of various ethnic groups in society, but also the ability to understand their representatives and interact with partners from other cultures.

The process of development of ethnocultural competence is described in M. Bennett's model of mastering a foreign culture, which identifies six stages that reflect the attitude of individuals to the differences between native and foreign ethnic groups. According to this model, a person goes through six stages of personal growth: three ethnocentric (denial of intercultural differences; protection from differences with their assessment in favor of one's group; minimization of differences) and three ethnorelativistic (recognition of differences; adaptation to differences between cultures or ethnic groups; integration, etc.). i.e. the application of ethnorelativism to one's own identity).

The denial of intercultural differences is typical for people who do not have experience of communicating with representatives of other cultures. They are not aware of the differences between cultures, their own picture of the world is regarded as universal (this is a case of absolute, but not militant ethnocentrism). At the stage of protection from cultural differences, people perceive them as a threat to their existence and try to resist them, considering the values and norms of their culture as the only true ones, and others as "wrong". This stage may manifest itself in militant ethnocentrism and be accompanied by obsessive calls to be proud of one's own culture, which is seen as an ideal for all mankind. Minimizing intercultural differences means that individuals recognize them and do not evaluate them negatively, but define them as insignificant.

Ethnorelativism begins with the stage of recognition of ethnocultural differences, the acceptance by the individual of the right to a different view of the world. People in this stage of benevolent ethnocentrism experience joy in discovering and exploring differences. At the stage of adaptation to intercultural differences, the individual is able not only to be aware of intercultural differences, but also to behave in accordance with the rules of a foreign culture, without experiencing discomfort. As a rule, it is this stage that indicates the achievement of ethnocultural competence by a person.

But in the process of developing ethno-cultural competence, a person is able to rise one more step. At the stage of integration, the mentality of the individual includes the worldview not only of his own, but also of other cultures, he develops a bicultural identity. An individual at this - the highest - stage of personal growth, which has practically overcome ethnocentrism, can be defined as a person-intermediary between cultures.

the tendency to perceive all life phenomena from the position of "one's own" ethnic group, considered as a standard; the nature of ethnocentrism depends on the type of social relations, on the content of national policy, on the historical experience of interaction between peoples. Ethnic stereotypes are formed in a certain social context, acquiring a persistent form of prejudice, and can be used as an instrument of ethnic hatred.

ethnocentrism

ethnocentrism This term was first introduced into the behavioral sciences by W. G. Sumner in 1906 in Folkways. According to Sumner, this concept contains a fusion of two ideas: a) the tendency of people to consider their own group as a reference group, in relation to which all other groups are evaluated; b) the tendency to view one's own group as superior to other groups. The first part of this term bears in itself noticeable features of similarity with the concept of egocentrism; this tendency in itself does not necessarily imply the latter. Although this combination of components continues to prevail in some modern. social circles, E. today is more commonly associated with the second of Sumner's tendencies, that is, with the consideration of one's own group (usually national or ethnic) as superior to others. Often this term is associated with the difference, again following Sumner, between the in-group (in group) - the group to which people. belongs, and out-group (out group) - any other group than the one to which he belongs. E. in this sense is often used as a synonym for out-group hostility, or hostility directed at all other groups except one's own. Sumner initially assumed that the tendency to E. was universal. Today, however, only a few researchers will subscribe to this t. sp. E. as a whole is interpreted not as a "fact of human nature", but as a result of certain circumstances. T. o., modern. the study of this phenomenon is aimed at establishing: a) the causes of E., its strengthening or weakening; b) pract. ways to reduce E. in about-ve. Because of the numerous consequences for about-va the first of these problems attracted the greatest attention of researchers till now. It is convenient to classify approaches to studying the causes of E. on the basis of the preferred locus of explanation. Thus, theories will differ among themselves depending on whether they refer the causes of E. to the sphere of individual psychology, interpersonal relations, or social. about-va structures. Despite the fact that each of these orientations implies (directly or indirectly) resp. approaches to decrease E., certain lines issled. concentrated directly on the problem of its origins. As stated in this case, E. can have a variety of roots. Often, its sources are not subject to radical change (eg, the structure of the community, based on consanguinity) or are no longer present in the present (eg, a certain relationship between a parent and a child). The two most important ideas that emerged from the study of this diversity include the contact hypothesis and the concept of superordinate goals. With regard to the contact hypothesis, researchers, in particular M. Deutsch and M. Collins (Interracial housing), found that an increase in contacts between members of different groups can contribute to the reduction of intergroup hostility and the development of positive relationships. However, as shown by further research, the conditions under which contact can generate such effects are characterized by a set of certain restrictions. For example, members of different groups should have equal say in decision-making, equal status within the group, and experience at least partial success (rather than failure) in their efforts. Dr. researchers have made a strong case for establishing common, superordinate goals for groups in a highly competitive situation. It is argued that E. will decrease as members of various groups are included in joint activities aimed at achieving the goals they share. See also Ethnic groups, National character K. Gergen, M. M. Gergen

ethnocentrism

Using one's own ethnic group as a basis for judgments about other ethnic groups. There is a tendency to view the beliefs, customs, and behaviors of our group as "normal" and those of other ethnic groups as "weird" or deviant. In taking this position, we proceed from the premise that our ethnic group is in some respects superior to all others.

ethnocentrism

Word formation. Comes from the Greek. ethnos - people + kentron - center.

Specificity. Belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic or cultural group (race, people, class). On this basis, disregard for representatives of other social groups develops.

ethnocentrism

1. The tendency to view one's own ethnic group and social standards as the basis for value judgments about the practices of others. The implication is that a person considers his own standards to be superior. Therefore, ethnocentrism implies a habitual disposition to dislike the practices of outgroups. This term is an ethnic analogue of egocentrism. 2. In some cases, a synonym for sociocentrism. But see this term for more details.

ethnocentrism

the propensity of a person, a group to evaluate all life phenomena through the prism of the values of their ethnic group, considered as a standard, the preference of their own way of life to everyone else. It is one of the factors of interethnic conflict.

ethnocentrism

a set of views, ideas, values, actions that lead to the absolutization of the value-normative system of culture of a given ethnic group and to underestimation, neglect of the culture of another ethnic group, which most often results in the emergence of conflicts in the sphere of ethno-national relations.

ethnocentrism

assessment of the cultural phenomena of another people, the specific behavior of persons of another nationality in terms of the norms and values of their national culture and worldview, mentality. Wed Maxim Maksimych's estimated description of wedding rules in the Caucasus (M. Lermontov, Hero of Our Time), Jules Verne - unusual for Europeans music of an African tribe (80 days in a balloon). Wed sociocentrism. Ethnocentrism is often present in books whose authors describe their journey to other countries, in the stories of tourists about what struck them in another people.

ethnocentrism

from the Greek ethnos - tribe, group, people and Latin centrum - center, focus) - a person's tendency to perceive and evaluate the phenomena of the surrounding reality from the position of "his" ethnic community, considered as a standard. The essence of E. as a socio-psychological phenomenon is reduced to the presence of a set of mass irrational positive ideas about one's ethnic community as a kind of "core" around which ethnic communities are grouped. At the same time, the fixation of the features of one's ethnic group, which is characteristic of E., does not necessarily imply the formation of a negative or even hostile attitude towards representatives of other ethnic communities. The nature of E. is determined by the type of social relations, ideology, the content of national policy, as well as the personal experience of the individual. The concept of economics was first introduced into science in 1883 by the Austrian sociologist I. Gumplovich. Previously, this concept was developed by the American sociologist D. Sumner. Considering the relationship between "we - the group" and "they - the group" as hostile, D. Sumner argued that this hostility is based on a person's tendency to evaluate various phenomena of the surrounding world on the basis of cultural stereotypes of the ethnic community to which he belongs, i.e. .on the basis of ethnocentrism. In subsequent years, the term "ethnocentrism" became widely used in social psychology, sociology and ethnography. E. has a certain objective basis in the real difference between cultures, ways of life, and the historical experience of individual tribes, peoples, and strata of society. Its development is facilitated by the poor awareness of people about the customs, beliefs, traditional activities of representatives of other social groups. In this regard, it can be assumed that with the development of communications, the growth in the volume and availability of information, as well as progress in the field of culture and education, the phenomenon of E. will gradually weaken. This is facilitated by the interpenetration of ethnic communities, the variability of cultural and linguistic characteristics, the problematic ethnicity of some members of ethnic communities, interaction that crosses the boundaries of ethnic communities, historical shifts in ethnicity and lifestyle. Being in general a phenomenon that aggravates relations between various social groups and their representatives, at the same time, economics contributes to the preservation of their identity and the consolidation of their characteristics. Without this phenomenon, the process of assimilation would have gone much faster. Besides, E. is a powerful incentive for intra-group consolidation.