Spotlight on Students: Cultural Relativism versus Ethnocentrism

This post highlights the work required of my SA 202: Introduction to Anthropology students. Students were given the opportunity to explore a different culture through two lenses, cultural relativism and ethnocentrism, and through this exercise learn about themselves and the other culture. Several students were given the opportunity to have their exemplary work featured on the blog, and the students who provided permission have their work featured here in this and the following blog posts. Please show your appreciation for their work through the comments.

 

Image of several comments made in reference to #Swedengate (Image Source: Newsweek)

 

By: Cassandra Fierro

In this essay the difference and need for both cultural relativism and ethnocentrism will be discussed. A culturally relativistic and ethnocentric view will be talked about on a topic on a Swedish tradition and what these two opposing views are. The thought process behind these views and why people think like this and if it’s okay to think like this. At the end my views on the topic will be stated. 

 

One day a man on Reddit made a post under the thread titled, “What is the weirdest thing you had to do at someone else’s house because of their culture/religion,” about how he went over to a friend's house, and when it was time for dinner his friend told him to wait in his room until he was done eating. This sparked wide controversy as people started to criticize this boy and his family for what they had done to him.  It was revealed that the boy's family was Swedish. Not feeding quests was actually part of their culture so by no means were they being disrespectful, but the Redditor was not aware of this when he commented, which started debates on whether this tradition was okay or not. While many people started to belittle Swedish people for this and even created a hashtag on Twitter called #Swedengate many, however, defended Sweden saying that cultural norms are different in each country and that this was no different. For example, in Japan if you slurp your noodles loudly that is seen as a sign of respect, but here in the United States if you slurp your noodles loudly you are going to get a few stares. 

 

Ethnocentrism is when you have a certain bias to either cultural practices or ethic practices this is how you view other groups of people and the way they hold themselves (Baylor, 2019). If you have the mindset of someone who views everything from an ethnocentric standpoint you do not believe that someone’s practices are correct because their beliefs do not correlate with yours. It is a very close-minded belief and more often than not you are in the wrong. This can vary depending on circumstances whether it be on what foods you can and cannot eat to what religion you can practice. Ethnocentrism has made differences that divide us things, such as racism, sexism, nationalism, and more (Baylor). One example of an ethnocentric mindset is on whether or not a woman can wear a hijab, and an ethnocentric individual would think that it is not okay to wear it because it is different from their religious beliefs. 

 

Cultural relativism is having the knowledge that ethical practices differ among various different cultures and that even though someone might see something as wrong one might consider it right and know that it is okay to have differences (Nickerson, 2022). Having the culturally relativistic mindset shows that you are open minded and do not ostracize people for being different or doing something different than you. An example of being culturally relativistic is with the take on whether or not you should eat guinea pigs. With this mindset you would see that in some countries it is a delicacy even though you yourself would never eat it because it goes against your morals or beliefs. 

 

An ethnocentric standpoint on the Swedish host not feeding a guest would claim such a practice as not okay. In most cultures if you have a guest you are supposed to be a good host and provide for them and their accommodations. Many people also see that if you invite someone out and you do not feed them you are being rude. The fact that Swedish people do not practice feeding their guests and you are aware of this fact you would still believe that this is wrong and that Swedish people need to re-educate themselves and start providing for their guests. 

 

A culturally relativistic mindset on the Swedish custom of not feeding guests would allow for awareness that in other cultures it is okay to not feed your guests even though you do otherwise. You would not put down people who practice something different than you. What is seen in Swedish culture is to not provide for guests primarily when it comes to feeding them because it is seen as a sign of disrespect. When you feed another person you are saying that they cannot provide for themselves or their guardians cannot provide for them. 

 

Ethnocentrism and cultural relativism are two sides of the same coin; you can be one or the other but it is really hard to be both. One is a much better mindset than the other mindset. I have a culturally relativistic view on the Swedish practice of not feeding your guests. Although I would be bummed that I cannot eat with them I would understand.  I would always want to feed my guests and I would not belittle the family that did not let me eat with them because of their beliefs. I once went over to a friend’s house and they were vegetarian.  I did not ask them to serve me meat; I simply ate what was given and went on about my day. Cultural relativism is definitely the way to go because it, in a way, shows you are a good person that is accepting of others. Ethnocentrism is not a view that is good to have, but there is always room to grow for people and for them to change their mindset. 

 

Works Cited

Baylor, Elizabeth. “Ethnocentrism - Anthropology - Oxford Bibliographies.” Obo, Oxford, 19 Nov. 2019.

By: Steve Ross

Culture is something that is unique to every group of people. There may be a lot of similarities, but the differences are always much easier to notice. Some of the factors that may influence a group’s culture are geographic location, climate, nearby resources, animals, and various other commodities. These differences of culture can cause confusion, turmoil, arguments, and even conflict in severe situations. In today’s world, these misunderstandings can lead to the chastisement of an entire group of people and their culture. Often the ones doing the reprimanding just simply do not understand the culture they are insulting, or the historical context behind their actions.

An example of this occurred when someone on Reddit posted about an encounter with his Swedish friend. His friend told him to wait in his room while he ate dinner with his family, rather than inviting him to dine with them. This post led to others posting about similar experiences, and a barrage of negative comments towards Swedish culture. As it turns out, there were multiple reasons for such seemingly rude behavior. During Sweden’s harsh winters food had to be stored and rationed; there was not always enough for everyone. Also, in their culture feeding another person’s child is seen as an insult to that family, questioning their ability to provide for their loved ones (Reneau). There are different ways that we can look at cultural traditions like this one, but this essay will define and give examples of two of the most common ways that we look at other people’s cultures, which are through ethnocentric and culturally relativistic views.

According to the textbook Anthropology: Asking Questions About Human Origins, Diversity, and Culture, ethnocentrism is defined as “assuming our way of doing things is correct, while simply dismissing other people’s assumptions as wrong or ignorant” (Fuentes, Vivanco, Welsch, 11). In other words, this lens is not very tolerant of differences, and encourages a very narrow mindset. The inverse method of viewing cultures is cultural relativism. The same text mentioned earlier describes cultural relativism as “the moral and intellectual principle that one should withhold judgment about seemingly strange or exotic beliefs and practices” (Fuentes, Vivanco, Welsch, 12). This way of viewing cultures is much more open-minded and understanding.

An ethnocentric interpretation of the situation described in the first paragraph is what happened in real life. The man who wrote the post talked about the incident as if his Swedish friend had committed a crime. The internet was also quick to express how rude the Swedes are for not offering their guests food. This immediate reaction is a perfect example of ethnocentrism. After witnessing something seen as unconventional compared to their own culture, plenty of people dismissed and criticized the entire culture, deeming them rude and inconsiderate. The article specifically tells us, “the entire nation of Sweden took a beating as people berated their rude habits and lack of basic hospitality” (Reneau). This type of intolerance is what leads to stereotyping, discrimination, exclusion, and other forms of division that result in the mistreatment of a specific culture and group of people.

A culturally relativistic interpretation of the situation would be much more tolerant and less critical. Rather than instantly vilifying the entire Swedish culture, one might find it weird that they were not offered any food, but this person would also recognize that in different cultures people hold different criteria for what is hospitable, among other things. No offense would be taken for such a thing, even though it would be seen as unusual. The culture would be seen and acknowledged without judgment, rather than blatantly disrespected.

In this situation, as with most situations I think that cultural relativism is usually a better response. Ethnocentric reactions can be very limiting and insensitive. Overall, this type of reaction promotes division amongst different cultures. Although I believe this to be the case, in certain and extreme situations I notice my own ethnocentricity. For instance, I think everyone should chew with their mouths closed and that in any situation human sacrifice is wrong. These are very specific and extreme situations, but I recognize this as being ethnocentric. Returning to the situation discussed in the first paragraph, I would like to think that I would have had a culturally relativistic response. If I was in this scenario, I would have found it a bit strange, but from my own upbringing I probably would have assumed that they did not have enough to share. I can see why some might consider this situation to be rude, but I think it is also rude to go over someone’s house expecting them to feed you and being upset if they do not. This should be a message to us all that if we notice someone of a different culture doing something that we consider strange or wrong to us, maybe we should try to learn why these actions are permissible in their culture rather than assuming the worst.

Works Cited

Reneau, Annie. “The Swedish Resistance to Feeding Guests May Not Actually Be as Rude as It Seems.” Upworthy, 8 June 2022, https://www.upworthy.com/sweden-not-feeding-guests-may-not-be-as-rude-as-it-seems.

Welsch, Robert Lewis, et al. Anthropology: Asking Questions About Human Origins, Diversity, and Culture. 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2020.

 

                                    Nickerson,Charlotte. “Cultural Relativism | Definition & Examples - Simply                       Psychology.” Study Guides for Psychology Students - Simply Psychology, Simply 

                        Psychology, 7 Apr. 2022.

 

Black Cats Bad Luck? The Origins of This Superstition

Image of a black cat previously owned by this post's writer.

 

You may have heard previously that black cats are considered bad luck or that having a black cat cross your path will harbor uncertain doom.  This is a culturally constructed idea common among European and North American populations.  It is also an idea that has existed for centuries, which is the topic of this blog post.  The origins of the black cat as symbol of bad luck will be explored, as well as the differing views of black cats in other cultures.

 

Black cats were branded minions of Satan (the epitome of all evil with Christian faiths) in 1233.  Pope Gregory IX declared it such, sparking a quick change in opinion of these creatures who had been previously viewed benignly up to that point.  His declaration not only affected black cats, however.  It also marked a shift in views of men but particularly women throughout Europe.  His decree also coincided with a long series of witch trials throughout the region.  These were used as mechanisms of social control to keep individuals, again, particularly women, in line with the dominant cultural norms of the period and area.  Women who did not follow those norms, be it by their own choice or due to circumstances beyond their control, were largely targeted, branded witches, and punished harshly.

 

Witch trials followed specific processes, beginning with the accusation of an individual as a witch.  Accusers were responsible for providing evidence to support their claim, which is where black cats come in.  Because of long standing cultural beliefs of the color black being associated with evil and death and Pope Gregory IX’s previous decree black cats found within the vicinity of accused witches was often enough evidence to support the accusation and condemn the “witch”.  Over time, this idea morphed into something new.  Black cats began to be labeled as either witch’s familiars (companions) who did their bidding for them or were the animal manifestations of witches themselves.  These ideas really took hold to catastrophic proportions at the beginning of the Bubonic plague wherein cats, particularly black cats, were viewed as being responsible for the spread of the plague.  People killed cats en masse, inadvertently prolonging the Bubonic plague’s spread as it was not cats but rodents that spread the disease.  The mass extermination of cats, natural predators to rodents, caused the opposite effect that Europeans desired.  This belief also led to killing of black cats as it was believed that doing, followed by the consumption of their corpse, could heal various diseases and ailments (note, it does not!)

 

The idea that black cats are bad luck was brought to the Americas via religiously devout and highly superstitious European populations, who practiced a variety of superstitious folk magic customs.  They did this for the same reasons their European counterparts did: to control the unknown and uncontrollable.  The purpose of any superstition is to allow people to regain control of uncontrollable situations wherein they formulate an understanding of the situation based on their beliefs.  From there they identify applicable and appropriate solutions.  This creates the origins of the superstition and the corresponding superstitious/supernatural solution.

 

Today, the notion of black cats as bad luck continues, but it is not a cultural universal.  There are several cultures that believe that black cats can be harbingers of good luck.  For example, in Japan it is believed that a black cat that crosses one’s path brings good luck, but in Germany the direction that the cat comes from when it walks in your path demonstrates either good or bad luck.  In Wales and Scotland, a black cat in one’s home can bring wealth and prosperity.  Ultimately, there is no evidence to support any of these cultural beliefs as they are all linked back to superstitions, and cats are just cats-good or bad, lucky or unlucky, depending on how one views these animals.

 

Works Cited

Blue Cross. "Black cat superstition ." 9 September 2020. Blue Cross UK. Electronic. 17 June 2022.

Carnegie Institute. "Superstitions and Black Cats." 2020. Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Electronic. 17 June 2022.

Fatik Baran Mandal, Superstitions: A Culturally Transmitted Human Behavior, International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 4, 2018, pp. 65-69.

Oliver, Harry. Black Cats & Four Leaf Clovers: The Origins of Old Wives' Tales and Superstitions in Our Everyday Lives. United States: Penguin Publishing Group, 2010. Print.

Yuko, Elizabeth. "Why Black Cats Are Associated With Halloween and Bad Luck." 13 October 2021. History.com. Electronic. 17 June 2022.

Aztec Death Whistle

Figure 1: Aztec Death Whistle (Source: Rodriquez, 2010)

 

The Aztec civilization is well known due to extensive archaeological study and ethnohistorical records as recorded by the Spanish conquistadors who conquered them.  While the Aztecs maintained one of the last empires in Central America and practiced a fairly egalitarian society they are often best known for their extensive sacrificial rituals, which were closely tied to their religion.  Today’s blog post addresses a more recent discovery concerning an additional dimension of their sacrificial rituals, specifically the discovery and interpretation of what is now referred to as the Aztec death whistle (Figure 1).

 

The Aztec death whistle was initially discovered in 1999 at the site of Tlatelolco in modern day Mexico City, which is built upon the ruins of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan.  This artifact was found between the hands of a sacrificial victim who was sacrificed to the Aztec wind god, Ehecatl.  The artifact is described as a small clay flute carved into the shape of a human skull with holes in the back and front, specifically through the nose of the skull. 

 

Initially, scholars dismissed this item as a toy and did not examine it further.  It was not until 15 years later through accident that the artifact received new attention.  Roberto Velasquez decided to blow into the back hole of the flute (as the front holes were too small to produce sound) and discovered that this produced the most eerie of sounds, which have been described as being reminiscent of human screams or extreme howling winds. 

 

This has led Velazquez and others to hypothesize as to the exact purpose of this flute, which was subsequently named the Aztec Death Whistle.  Due to its initial associations (with a sacrificial victim) there exist two prevailing hypotheses, both related to each other.  Unsurprisingly, both hypotheses are related to Aztec sacrifices, which took place to satiate the Aztec gods’ need for blood to continue to survive and provide a hospital environment for humans to exist in.  One hypothesis is that Aztecs used the Death Whistle to signal the beginning of their Flowery Wars, which were battles waged for the specific purpose of collecting sacrificial victims (and that individuals voluntarily participated in as a death in battle or by sacrifice meant automatic entry into an afterlife of paradise).  The other hypothesis puts forward the idea that sacrificial victims played the flute before being sacrificed.

 

At the present time it is unclear what the specific purpose of the Aztec Death Whistle was, and thus far this is the only such whistle/flute discovered.  The current hypotheses may not be accurate as skull motifs were common throughout Aztec art.  It will be interesting to see if additional discoveries of more whistles are made and how they may clarify the specific meaning and purpose of this artifact.

 

References

Ahn, I.-S., Bae, S.-G., & Bae, M.-J. (2021). A Study on the Similarity between the Strange Whistle and Screams of Human. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 147-151.

Velazquez, R. (2010). Death Whistle. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Westmaas, R. (2019, August 1). The Aztec Death Whistle Makes One of the Scariest Sounds You'll Ever Hear. Retrieved from Discovery: https://www.discovery.com/nature/Aztec-Death-Whistle