ETHNOCENTRISM AS A TRANSGENERATIONAL MENTAL CONSTRUCT (original) (raw)
Related papers
Advances in Political Psychology, 2021
The concept of ethnocentrism was introduced by Gumplowicz in the 1870s, popularized by Sumner in the 1900s, and first investigated psychometrically by Adorno and colleagues in the 1940s. It has become a fundamental concept in the social sciences, but over the last several decades, its popularity and usage in political and social psychology have decreased. Recent events, such as the growing popularity of ethno-nationalist and populist leaders and policies, show that ethnocentrism as a phenomenon has been resurging around the world. In addition, given its important explanatory power, an increasing number of political psychologists have started again to use the concept. This article presents an analysis of ethnocentrism reconceptualized as a hierarchical construct emanating from a strong sense of ethnic group self-centeredness and self-importance. It discusses the prevalence of ethnocentrism around the world, its conceptualization and measurement, and its theoretical underpinnings, supporting them with novel empirical research conducted with two abbreviated measures of ethnocentrism. The article argues that ethnocentrism ultimately stems from the need to strengthen one’s own ethnic group at the expense of anyone who and anything that can weaken it.
A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism
European Journal of Social Psychology, 2009
This investigation tests a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism based primarily on Sumner's definitions. Ethnocentrism is reconceptualized as ethnic group self-centeredness, with four intergroup expressions of ingroup preference, superiority, purity, and exploitativeness, and two intragroup expressions of group cohesion and devotion. The reconceptualization was supported in Study 1 among 350 New Zealand participants and in Study 2 among 212 US, 208 Serbian, and 279 French participants. Ethnocentrism in each country consisted of two correlated second-order factors representing intergroup and intragroup ethnocentrism and six first-order factors representing the six primary expressions. Analyses in Study 2 supported the measurement invariance of the scale and a third-order factor model, with one ethnocentrism factor at the broadest level of generalization. Ethnocentrism was empirically distinct from outgroup negativity and mere ingroup positivity. Intragroup ethnocentrism appeared primarily based on ethnic insecurity, personal self-transcendence, and ethnic identification, whereas intergroup ethnocentrism appeared primarily based on self-aggrandizement, warlikeness, and generally chauvinistic attitudes. Accordingly, although related, the two kinds of ethnocentrism tend to have quite differential implications for group attitudes and behaviors.
What Is and Is Not Ethnocentrism? A Conceptual Analysis and Political Implications
Political Psychology, 2012
Conceptual analysis has not been systematically implemented in psychology and many concepts have often been defined in different and contradictory ways. This paper focuses on a conceptual clarification of ethnocentrism. It points out the conceptual confusion surrounding the term, reviews numerous definitions and operationalizations, and attempts to clarify it.
Some Myths About Ethnocentrism
Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2017
Ethnocentrism, it is said, involves believing certain things to be true: that one’s culture is superior to others, more deserving of respect, or at the “center” of things. On the alternative view defended in this article, ethnocentrism is a type of bias, not a set of beliefs. If this is correct, it challenges conventional wisdom about the scope, danger, and avoidance of ethnocentrism.
Vocabulary for the Study of Religion (Vol. 1), 2015
Ethnocentrism is a slippery concept that different disciplines and individuals use in diverse, inconsistent, and incompatible ways. Ethnocentrism is usually defined as a kind of ethnic or cultural group egocentrism, which involves a belief in the superiority of one’s own group, including its values and practices, and often contempt, hatred, and hostility towards those outside the group. Although the focus of ethnocentrism is most often an ethnic or cultural group, certain usages of ethnocentrism refer to many, or even all, kinds of groups. This entry will present a critical overview of different usages of ethnocentrism. It will first review original usages of the concept. Next, it will critically review usages of the concept across disciplines, and will provide a comprehensive and internally consistent definition of ethnocentrism. Finally, it will discuss four links between ethnocentrism and religion.
A Political Psychology of Ethnocentrism
The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology, 2021
Ethnocentrism is an attitudinal construct that involves a strong sense of ethnic group self-centredness and self-importance. It is a universal phenomenon found across cultures and time periods. Although ethnocentrism can be expressed in many domains, it finds its expressions particularly significant in the political domain. This chapter provides a comprehensive review of ethnocentrism, with an emphasis on its implications for the field of political psychology. The chapter defines the concept and explains its unified theoretical approach, the group strength model of ethnocentrism. It discusses the role of ethnocentrism in political domains, such as nationalism, policy preferences, and political party and candidate support. Although ethnocentrism has been described as a “delusion” by Gumplowicz back in 1879, it is a forceful delusion, which has a strong grasp over humans and is unlikely to disappear. Political psychologists, therefore, need to more carefully study ethnocentrism and its political implications across societies and political systems.
Who coined the concept of ethnocentrism? A brief report
It is widely assumed that Sumner coined the concept of ethnocentrism in 1906. This attribution is prominent in psychology and the social sciences and is found in major works on ethnocentrism, intergroup relations, and prejudice. A review of classic sources written in German, Polish, and English shows that the concept had existed in numerous publications for at least several decades before Sumner's writings on ethnocentrism (e.g., . This article presents early conceptualizations of ethnocentrism and potential influences on Sumner. It also discusses implications of this conceptual history, such as biases that may have contributed to the widespread belief that Sumner coined the concept. It is argued that psychologists and other social scientists should stop attributing the origin of the concept to Sumner, despite his important role in popularizing it, and, in general, should engage more with their intellectual history in different languages.
Revive Magazine, 2016
Ethnocentrism is the idolization of one set of ethnic definitions and attempt to worship it, defend it, and protect it by means of taboos of excommunication or, in viler cases, extermination. In its more extreme form, ethnocentrism is a superiority complex view that considers one’s own ethnic identity in the superlative, i.e. as higher and greater than any other in the world. Its various manifestations are cultural-nationalism, fascism, racialism, religious-nationalism, linguistic-nationalism, communalism and the like. The Australian Oxford Dictionary defines being “ethnocentric” as “regarding one’s own race or ethnic group as of supreme importance and superior to all others; evaluating other races and cultures by criteria specific to one’s own.” Ethnocentrism is anti-biblical. In fact, regarding even other people groups as racially superior or inferior is violence against the fact of humanity.
Ethnocentrism and Prejudice: History of the Concepts
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2015
Ethnocentrism and prejudice are two distinct, though closely related, concepts. Since the early twentieth century, social scientists have tended to see them as fundamental social scientific concepts. This article presents a brief history of how social scientists conceptualized ethnocentrism and prejudice, and discusses their study with a focus on four prominent explanations that guided empirical research: (1) evolutionary, (2) threat and conflict, (3) self-aggrandizement, and (4) socialization and normative.