Spotlight on Students: Ethnocentrism vs. Cultural Relativism

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.

Artistic depiction of the "Stand on Business" challenge Love Island USA contestants participated in (Google Images)

By: Marlee Brown

 

I would have never thought that anthropology could be applied to a reality television show, but here I am. Love Island USA is a dating television show originally taking place in the United Kingdom but has expanded to 22 other countries (OnlineDancers, n.d.). The most well-known versions are in the United States and Australia. A group of people aged 20-40 years old enter a tropical mansion house to find the love of their life. As time passes, people get into couples and compete in challenges to test the strength of their love. In the finale, one couple wins by being voted by the viewers, and they get a monetary prize. On the show, it showcases a high level of cultural diversity within the cast. There are bound to be cultural differences. It is clear that some of the contestants have a culturally relativistic mindset, while others have ethnocentric perspectives. In a confrontation on Love Island USA Season Seven, it is a clear dispute of affection culture.

 

This tenacious confrontation is started by a nightly challenge. The “Stand on Business” challenge has contestants submit anonymous complaints or other thoughts about each other. Amaya, a Latina-American woman, receives the complaint about how she “cr[ies] more than needed…[and] move[s] too fast for everyone.” Amaya at this point has had connections with Bryan (a Latino-American man), Austin (a White-American man), Ace (a Black-American man), and Zak (a Thai-British man). Austin and Ace admit to writing their complaints about Amaya. They both claim she is too emotionally attached early to her matches. She calls them “babe,” “honey,” and “love,” which these men believe is extremely affectionate for the short time they have known her romantically. Amaya is hurt as she thinks she is just expressing her Hispanic culture by being affectionate for the people she cares about, and Bryan supports her. He too understands that level of affection towards others in a relationship; he has his own personal experience with it. He says that it is just their Hispanic culture and if the other men had a problem while in that relationship with Amaya they should have put in the effort to understand her instead of judging her. Amaya expresses that she has spoken to both Ace and Austin about her cultural words of affirmation in the past, and they have never expressed negative feelings toward her behavior. Amaya stands strong and is proud of her culture at the end of this conversation. She says, “You can view it as a weakness, but given what I have been through in life, I view it as a strength. I’m just not your cup of tea to be drinking.”

 

From this conversation, I can see that both Austin and Ace have ethnocentric ideas about Amaya and her culture. Ethnocentrism is “the assumption that one’s own way of doing things is correct, while dismissing other people’s practices or views as wrong or ignorant” (Welsch et al., 2017, pg. 11). They both believe that she is wrong for her style of communication. Amaya expresses her Latinx culture through words; the two boys are completely uncomfortable with Amaya’s cultural expression. It is not that Austin or Ace is conveying their culture through words just as Amaya is, but they are actively judging her affection.

 

Bryan, however, has the opposite perspective on Amaya’s actions. Bryan is practicing cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is “the moral and intellectual principle that one should withhold judgment about seemingly strange or exotic beliefs or practices (Welsch et al., 2017, pg. 12).” Bryan is speaking about Amaya’s affection with a sense of familiarity. He is Latino and grew up expressing and receiving this kind of affectionate communication style. He sees nothing wrong with what Amaya is doing. He even thinks that if those men had an issue they should have come to the situation with an open mind and not discriminatory thoughts.

 

Now with understanding both ethnocentric and culturally relativistic perspectives, I would say my opinion of Amaya’s situation is culturally relativistic. I grew up in a predominantly Hispanic community, and I personally have friends that use Amaya’s communication style. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with having an affectionate way of talking. I was shocked that Amaya was even put down. She is a caring and lovely person from what I can observe from watching the show. She truly is caring and she would push past the comfort zone of the person she is in a relationship with. If the men had a problem during their romance with Amaya, they should have told her. Austin and Ace both need to keep open minds; they need not judge before communicating their feelings. Without proper communication, Austin and Ace both are judgmental toward Amaya’s behaviors. Amaya is justified in this situation that they do not need to complain about her behaviors because she is simply not their “cup of tea to be drinking.” It is nice to see Bryan stand up for Amaya by explaining that it is just their Latinx culture surfacing as it has nothing to do with being intensely romantic or just caring. It is just their culture, and everyone's culture should not be judged.

 

Love Island USA is full of diverse people and cultures. It shows both cultural relativism and ethnocentrism intertwined within romantic relationships. Amaya’s situation during the “Standing on Business” challenge on Love Island USA is just one of many ways that these ideas are shown. Bryan ended up matching with Amaya. He showed her his cultural acceptance, and it made her feel heard.

 

References

 

OnlineDancers. (n.d.). Love Island Wiki Home Page. Love Island Wiki Love Island Wiki.

Retrieved September 1, 2025, from https://loveisland.fandom.com/wiki/Love_Island_Wiki

 

Thursby, B. (Director). (2025, July 1). Love Island USA (Season 7, Episode 26) [TV series

episode]. In C. Fenster, J. Barker, A. Cadman, R. Cowles, R. Foster, B. Garrett, D.

George, T. Gould, J. Hochman, C. Rosenthal, B. Schaeffer, A. Sher, M. Spencer, & B.

Thursby (Executive Producers), Love Island USA. ITV Entertainment.

 

Welsch, R. L., Vivanco, L. A., & Fuentes, A. (2017). Anthropology: Asking Questions About

Human Origins, Diversity and Culture. Retrieved September 1, 2025, from

https://platform.virdocs.com/read/581908/49/#/4/4

 
 

Archaeological Examples of Cannibalism

As recently discussed on this blog cannibalism is a universal taboo, meaning societies and cultures around the world agree that it is prohibited.  This does not, however, appear to have been the case among some of our human ancestors (e.g., Homo antecessor and Paranthropus boisei), who practiced cannibalism for unknown reasons.  It also occurred in the archaeological record among some specific populations, although the reasons for not observing this taboo are imprecisely known.  Today's blog post addresses three separate archaeological examples of cannibalism among anatomically modern humans:

 

Figure 1: Skull cup of the Magdelanian culture 

 

Cannibalism among Paleolithic Europeans 

Among the Magdalenian populations (15,000-12,000 years before present) cannibalism was quite frequent and commonplace.  As previously addressed on this blog there is evidence of Magdelanian populations cannibalizing fellow humans. There are several examples of the Magdalenian people modifying human bones into cups (Figure 1) and jewelry, which further supports cannibalism occurring among these populations.  This evidence has been found at sites in England, France, and Spain.  For many decades scholars believed these were acts of mortuary cannibalism, meaning the consumption of the dead for funerary purposes, but more recent evidence out of Poland suggests that these acts may have either been gastric or warfare cannibalistic events, which means they ate people as part of their regular diet or as an act of revenge (respectively).  The evidence of other foods resources, of which there were plenty, rules out survival cannibalism (consuming human flesh as a last resort).

 

Figure 2: Mesa Verde, Ancestral Puebloan site

 

Cannibalism among the Ancestral Puebloans 

The Ancestral Puebloans of the American Southwest (Figure 2) also practiced cannibalism.  At the site of Cowboy Wash (dating between 900 CE to 1300 CE) there is evidence of cannibalism taking place, although the motivations remain unclear.  There are those who put forward the idea that it was warfare cannibalism to keep out enemies who were intruding on Ancestral Puebloans territory.  Others believe it may have been an act of survival cannibalism, particularly as we know the downfall of the Ancestral Puebloan society was due to climatic changes that led to desertification and famine.  Substantial violence was recorded during this period.  Still others claim the evidence is inconclusive of cannibalism altogether despite there being evidence of cannibalism at over 70 sites throughout the region.

Figure 3: Mr. & Mrs. Henry Reed, members of the Donner Party

Cannibalism among the American Settlers

Then there is the Donner Party, probably one of the more popular examples of cannibalism.  This is the failed emigration of residents from Illinois, Missouri, and other Midwestern states to California.  They left Independence, Missouri, following a trail guide with little experience and who had never taken the specific route he claimed would get everyone to their final destination quickly and safely. A series of unfortunate events and poor decisions led the Donner Party (so named after a member of the group) to separate and eventually get trapped in the Sierra Nevadas. The settlers were trapped for several months, and they resorted to survival cannibalism when they did not have food resources.  Archaeological evidence at one of the camps was improperly reported in popular media as having no evidence of cannibalism occurring there, when the reality was that the evidence demonstrated human and animal remains were present. Unfortunately, the remains were in too poor condition to be able to identify if and to what extent cannibalism took place.  Because of the historic reports (specifically interviews of the survivors) of cannibalism we do know that cannibalism took place among the Donner Party survivors (and some of those who did not survive).

 

References

Bello, S., Saladie, P., Caceras, I., Rodriguez-Hidalgo, A., & Parfitt, S. (2015). Upper Paleolithic Ritualistic Cannibalism at Gough's Cave (Somerset, UK): The Human Remains from Head to Toe. Journal of Human Evolution, 170-189.

Caceras, I. a. (1999). Human cannibalism in the early Pleistocene of Europe (Gran Dolina, Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution, 591-622.

Dixon, K., Novak, S., Robbins, G., Schablitsky, J., Scott, G., & Tasa, G. (2010). "Men, Women, and Children Starving": Archaeology of the Donner Family Camp. American Antiquity, 627-656.

Lindenbaum, S. (2004). Thinking About Cannibalism. Annual Reviews of Anthropology, 475-498.

Lukaschek, K. (2000/2001). The History of Cannibalism. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Marginedas, F., Saladié, P., Połtowicz-Bobak, M., Terberger, T., Bobak, D., & Rodríguez-Hidalgo, A. (2025). New insights of cultural cannibalism amongst Magdalenian groups at Maszycka Cave, Poland. Scientific Reports, 2351.

Pobiner, B., Pante, M., & Keevil, T. (2023). Early Pleistocene cut marked hominin fossil from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Scientific Reports, 9896.

Rudolph, K. (2009). A TAPHONOMIC ANALYSIS OF HUMAN SKELETAL MATERIAL FROM AZTALAN: CANNIBALISM, HOSTILITY AND MORTUARY VARIABILITY. Milwaukee: The University of Wisconsin.

Saladie, P. a.-H. (2017). Archaeological Evidence for Cannibalism in Prehistoric Western Europe: Homo antecessor to the Bronze Age. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1034-1071.

Saladie, P., Huguet, R., Rodriguez-Hidalgo, A., Caceras, I., Esteban-Nadal, M., Arsuaga, J., . . . Carbonell, E. (2012). Intergroup cannibalism in the European Early Pleistocene: The range expansion and imbalance of power hypotheses. Journal of Human Evolution, 682-695.

Turner, C. A. and J.A. Turner (1999). Cannibalism and Violence in the Prehistoric American Southwest. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Villa, P. (1992). Cannibalism in Prehistoric Europe. Evolutionary Anthropology, 93-104.