Samantha Cook

CCAC Sociology 101 Online

Essay #2 Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism

Robert Young

Sept. 30, 2015

 Ethnocentrism and Cultural relativism are very much alike, in that they are both

sociological views which were created in an attempt to better understand and explain the beliefs

as well as the behaviors and the many, many diverse customs of other cultures. However, these

two points of view differ significantly, in fact they are very visibly exact opposites. Cultural

relativism is a study that admits the truth of how both ethical and moral structures contrast from

one culture to the other, and is aware of the diversity among cultures. For this reason, what could

be considered entirely immoral in one culture and society, could be considered completely

socially acceptable and normal in another cultural background. As a result of this study,

there is an impartial examination of the certain behaviors and or practices of which were without

judgement within the one’s own cultural values.

Cultural relativism maintains the idea that there is no ubiquitous standard for measuring

morality and therefore no one has the right to judge someone else’s culture. In fact, cultural

relativists state that all cultures are of equal value. Cultural relativism and ethnocentrism are best

compared as the “heads or tails” of one coin where both of these rather philosophical ideas are

meshed and connected, seeing as they are exact opposites. One is open minded, the other is a

completely close-minded view.

Ethnocentrism came into place as a notion amongst differing nations earlier than cultural

relativism. Cultural relativism, which was at the start, brought to attention among sociologists in

order to counter the negative and “superior” ideas of ethnocentrism. And, the most significant

characteristic related to these notions and ideas is the fact that both of these come with specific

sets of adherent believers which can be specific individuals and specific nations as well. Cultural

relativism is understanding other cultures and their beliefs.

 “The scholars who defend or dispute cultural relativism, the idea that a moral principle

cannot be applied to people whose culture does not accept it, and have concerned themselves

with either the philosophical or anthropological aspects of relativism. This study, shows that in

order to arrive at a conclusive evaluation of cultural relativism, it is necessary to understand and

investigate both the philosophical aspects as well as the anthropological side.” (Cook) While

carefully scrutinizing the disputes which were both for and against cultural and moral relativism,

John W. Cook uncovers that the anthropologists have clearly collapsed in their attempt to support

relativism with evidence of cultural differences.

People who have a strong belief in ethnocentrism means that they essentially believe that

they, as a whole are above every other race and culture. It is a hard-headed and negative belief

that their country and background is the one which is and should be viewed as superior, believing

that their culture is the correct one, making every other existing cultures completely invalid seen

through the eyes of the common ethnocentrist. It is a warped and biased view based on

superiority. For example, what I have witnessed myself in today’s society as well as basic

history, avid racists and proud white supremacists have a similar mindset to ethnocentrist views,

and they are still existing in this day and age. The title white supremacist is rather self

explanatory, since they believe that white people are the superior race; much like Hitler’s belief

that the Aryan race would prevail and exterminate all other races that were inferior in his eyes.

The believers of the ethnocentrist view will not only consider the the most important of all but

that person will judge other cultures by comparing these to his or her specific culture.

Ethnocentrism, on the other hand, is the extreme opposite of cultural relativism. This opinion

dives down and shows an intense dissimilarity to cultural relativism, which primarily focuses on
the better and unbiased understanding of other cultures and their own related and diverse morals

and values.

Cultural relativism is considered to be more constructive and has a much more positive

structure and impact when it is compared side by side to ethnocentrism. It allows one to see a

society and its’ individual’s habits as well as their values and morals in the context of these

human’s cultural importance, not by comparing it to one’s own cultural values and by deeming

these the most superior and greater of all like those who believe in ethnocentrism. All the nations

come up with their specific sects of cultural and ethnic values and norms. And, all such cultural

values differ from one ethnic group or nationality to the other.

Cultural relativism seems to allow a certain type of filler in which no culture is subjected

to be determined by anyone as either superior or inferior to one or the other. All of the cultural

morals, aspects and norms of different cultures get to be viewed in the cultural pertinence where

it can be easily comprehended that one socially acceptable value seen as appropriate for one

specific culture can be inappropriate for the other. That being said, one specific idea does not

instigate becoming prejudiced or biased towards any specific cultural upbringing and aspects.

“Cultural relativism is the mistaken idea that there are no objective standards by which

our society can be judged because each culture is entitled to its own beliefs and accepted

practices. No one can object to any society’s intolerance that reflects its indigenous worldview.

Because there is no objective moral truth that pertains to all people and for all times, one moral

code is no better or no worse than any other (i.e., the moral equivalence doctrine). Thus, we

should not impose our values on other societies. It follows that, according to cultural relativism,

we cannot object to Hitler and Nazism, Mayan infant sacrifice, China’s massacre of students in
Tiananmen Square, South Africa’s segregations, genital mutilation (i.e., female circumcision) of

young girls in Africa, and so on, because each of these practices is justified by the worldview

within which it exists. Nor could we contend that one culture is superior to another culture. In

addition, we would also be prevented from criticizing our own culture’s practices such as

slavery.” (Younkins) States Dr. Edward Younkins, Professor of Accountancy and Business

Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia and author of Capitalism and

Commerce.

Within the view of cultural relativism, there would be no need for social progress. So,

what would we even be working towards?

 Works Cited

Cook, John W. "Morality and Cultural Differences." Preface. Morality and Cultural Differences.
New York: Oxford UP, 1999. N. pag. Print.

Younkins, Edward, Dr. Why the World Is the Way It Is: Cultural Relativism and It's Descendents.
Why the World Is the Way It Is: Cultural Relativism and It's Descendents. Jesuit University, Sept.
2000. Web. 2 Oct. 2015.