While it is right to be reluctant when judging other cultures, it seems coward and disingenious never to do so (This was part of my Bachelor thesis on "Early Childhood Education in the Gambia")
As a foreigner studying education in an African country, it seems inevitable to address ethnocentrism. After all, as stated above, despite my best efforts my observations stated here cannot be objective. Instead, they are necessarily tainted by my past experiences. Thus, I have to be aware that something being different does not equate to something being worse.
At the same time, I struggle with the notion – which I have prominently experienced at University – that we ought not to judge anything outside our own native environment. Even though this thesis is supposed to be primarily descriptive, I find it important to address the topic here.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ethnocentrism as the attitude that one's own group, ethnicity, or nationality is superior to others. The concept, which was first mentioned in 1906, was originally applied to the damage the imperialist powers caused native populations. In the days of colonialism, European emperors did not question that the invasion and suppression of formerly free people was justified. It was the duty of the educated and civilized European nobleman to help the natives make their way out of their barbaric and uncivilized habits, so they thought. The Western, or European, way of life was the most desirable one and helping others out of their primitive state was regarded as a humanitarian act.
As time went on, the locals grew sick and tired of the foreign suppression and intensified their struggles for independence. They realized that, despite noble claims, the colonialists primarily followed their own interests, exploiting the country. Nevertheless, for many countries under foreign rule it took major historic events such as world wars to regain their independence thanks to a weakened empire.
The former colonial powers might still say, however, that their influence benefited the people and countries that were under their rule in the past. Other parties might argue that imperialism has damaged and scarred the suppressed peoples considerably. Is an objective evaluation of this issue possible? Is it not true that the colonial powers increased medical aid, upgraded local infrastructure, and introduced modern politics to the natives? Is it also not true, however, that they did not consider the suppressed people as human beings with full rights and privileges, and that they always followed their own interests first?
The White Man's Burden
The colonial powers were convinced that their concept of good and bad, progressive and underdeveloped, modern and primitive was the only one and true concept. Hence, countries that did not share the same values could not be civilized and needed help. The European powers applied their own world view to people far away that lived under completely different circumstances.
It is still tempting to look at the world from that simplistic point of view – and in fact many countries still do. Why should we not? Are we not a role model regarding human rights, diplomacy, living conditions, and education?
The world is not that simple, of course, and calling yourself more civilized than other people is as ignorant as it is arrogant. This is not a solid foundation for a fruitful dialogue between nations. How could one objectively define perfect or better than anyone else? We cannot, and there is certainly plenty of room for criticism of our Western cultures. Outsiders might criticize our societies and they might have good reasons for doing so. Tolerance is the key, as much for us as for foreigners.
So far, the case has been made for the awareness of cultural and social differences. Who is right and who is wrong can often not be determined on an objective basis. However, the hesitation when it comes to the application of ethnocentrism should have its limits. Sometimes it seems as if ethnocentrism is the excuse some people give for not supporting universal human rights internationally. Or it is used to utilize the best of two worlds for yourself.
Cultural Awareness or hypocrisy?
Here, the documentary Secrets of the Tribe offers another example. When Kenneth Good is accused of pedophilia for marrying a Yanomami girl who was only about 12 years old at the time, he criticizes those opinions as ethnocentric and even racist. After all, he argues, in Yanomami culture it is not uncommon to marry at such a young age. One might argue that impregnating a 12 year old girl is not a taboo in that tribe and therefore we should not judge them. The same person, however, cannot argue that they support universal human rights and that they put the interest of a child first. It appears painfully frustrating to me that privileged people who are lucky enough to live in free societies do not grant the same rights and liberties to those who are less fortunate.
Genital mutilation, death sentences, torture, gender-based infanticide, honor killings, forced marriages and subsequent rape of minors – to name just a few – are deeply rooted in some cultures. Interfering with them would be ethnocentric – but should we not rather be concerned about the question what is right and what is wrong based on individual wellbeing? After all, our support for local habits is likely to end once they influence us personally – or would we prefer to be trialed for an alleged crime in a country we just visited instead of being trialed at home?
If we think that human rights should apply to us, what is our moral justification for denying others the same treatment? Paradoxically, could it not be that the idea of ethnocentrism is ethnocentric itself, since it originates from our own personal notion of what ought and what ought not to be? After all, the idea that other cultures should not be judged is likely a result of a free and enlightened society, a status not common in all parts of the world.
When is Ethnocentrism Justified?
I think one of the main problems when talking about ethnocentrism is that its opponents misinterpret the intention. Ideally, it is not about forcing your ways onto others but about giving them a choice. For that, they have to know that an alternative exists and it is necessary to name a problem to raise awareness.
When criticizing religious dogma, for example, the problem with women who are covering themselves is not that they should not have the option to do just that. The problem is that they might not have the option not to do it in fear of ramifications. Thus, we are not doing women in other countries (or even in our neighborhood) a favor when we think we ought not to judge when the main difference between us is not a choice, but the lack thereof.
People should have the right to live freely without fearing punishment, to be regarded as full and equal members of society, to make choices of their own, and to be protected by the Human Rights Charter. It should be our goal and our desire to enable them to live the life that we take for granted. Let them decide if they want to accept the changes or not – but give them a choice.
Thus, I will return to the topic in the summary regarding my observations in The Gambia. When your thoughts and suggestions in a conversation with Gambians are merely dismissed as the Western or white perspective versus the African perspective, should we not focus more on which ideas are good versus which are bad?
Comments