American Sociological Association (Essay)

nsg1385y

CharonWhyCantEveryonebeJustLikeUs.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >American Sociological Association (Essay)

152 Ten Questions' A Sociological Perspective

Mead, George Herbert 1925 "The Genesis of the Self and Social Control." International Journal ofEthics, 35: 251-277.

Mead, George Herbert 1934 Mind, Selfand Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Milgram. Stanley 1963 "Behavioral Study of Obedience." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 371-378.

Mills, C. Wright 1956 The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mills, C. Wright 1959 The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Perrow, Charles 1986 Complex Organizations. 3rd ed. New York: Random House.

Postman, Neil 1992 Technopoly: The Surrender ofCulture to Technology. New York: Knopf.

Ritzer, George 1993 The McDonaldization ofSociety: An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Sapir, Edward 1949 Language: An Introduction to the Study ofSpeech. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Scott, Kody 1993 Monster: The Autobiography ofan L.A. Gang Member. New York: Penguin Books.

Shibutani, Tamotsu 1961 Society and Personality: An Interactionist Approach to Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Thoreau, Henry David 1849 "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience." In Walden: On the Duty ofCivil Disobedience. 1948 ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1999 Current Population Survey. March. IWashington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wallace, Richard Cheever, and Wendy Drew Wallace 1985 Sociology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Warriner, Charles K. 1970 The Emergence ofSociety. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. \ White, Leslie A. 1940 The Science ofCulture. New York: Farrar. Straus jand Giroux. Whorl, Benjamin Lee 1941 "Languages and Logic." Technology Review, 43: 250-252, 266,268,272.

Wilson, William 1987 The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the j Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wrong, Dennis H. 1961 "The Oversocialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology." American Sociological Review, 26: 183-193.

Zimbardo, Philip 1972 "Pathology of Imprisonment." Society, 9: 4-8.

Why Can't Everyone Be Just Like Us? The Dilemma of Ethnocentrism

The ancient Greeks lived in many small city-states. Each city-state was independent and had its own government, army, and economy. Some, such as Athens, were democracies; and some, such as Sparta, were autocracies. Together, however, their citizens shared a her itage: They were all Greeks. Beyond the mountains and sea lived other peoples. Such people were strangers, barbarians. Their ways were different and less desirable. They were, in a word, "uncivi lized." Like the Greeks, the Romans also saw the world divided into two: the civilization of Rome and the barbarian peoples. The me dieval world divided people into heathen and Christian, and the Eu ropean peoples who came to the Americas encountered many different cultures but called them all "Indian" and commonly de scribed their ways as savage.

When I attended North High SchooL I honestly believed that somehow our schooL our student body, our teachers, our teams were better than others. My loyalty to North included a lingering belief that we were truly blessed over those who attended other schools. At all athletic events I was sure that in controversial calls we were right and the other team somehow had the referees on its side.

Most Americans do, in fact. believe that the United States is the greatest nation in the world, and it is difficult for us to believe that there are other ways of living that are equally good or even better. When we looked at the former Soviet Union, we blamed its prob lems and shortcomings on an authoritarian regime and on govern ment involvement in the economy, and we claimed that if only the Kremlin's ways could become similar to our ways, the people could have enjoyed what we enjoy. Indeed, when we look at other cul

153

154

Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective

tures, we tend to distinguish them according to how close they come to Our own. We see some as primitive, some as developing, and some as developed and civilized.

I am talking here of several very important issues, all intimately related. It is important to examiiIe these one at a time.

The Meaning of Values

"Oompa, oompa, oompa-pa, my pa's better than your pa-pa." My religion is better than yours. My school. My major. My parents are. My morals. My life plans. My goals in life. My car. My friends.

Comparisons have something to do With values. Whenever we Use terms such as better, best, good, bad, superior, inferior, shOUld, and should not, we enter the complex World of values. The tip-off that people are discussing values is whenever they use or imply the word should. In that case someone is always making a value judgment. The statement has to do with What should exist in the World rather than what actually eXists, The title of this chapter is "Why Can't Everyone Be Just Like Us?" Although should is not in the question, it is cer tainly implied: "Others should be like us, so Why aren't theyr

I ViVidly remember a conversation with two professors on a four-hour drive. They Were singing the praises of higher education. "Everyone should get a COllege education, " they said. "Knowledge is better than ignorance." I turned to them and boldly declared: "You're making a value judgment. Although I generally agree with you, there's no way any of us can prove that We're right. Only state ments of fact can be proved. " They disagreed, and we argued back and forth. I asked: "Why is knOWledge better than ignorance?" Their answer: "Because it helps us succeed in the occupational world." "Well," I replied, "who says that We should SUcceed in the occupa tional world?" Such questions are often important and sometimes trivial, but they always involve assumptions of what we think life should be like, and thus they become questions of values.

Values are Our COmmitments, and they reflect Our image of what is good and What is not good in this World. Values are the standards against which people jUdge their own acts and the acts of others. They tell us "what goals people ought to seek, What is reqUired or forbidden, What is honorable and shameful, and What is beautiful and ugly" (Shibutani, 1986:68). If I really believe that haVing a fam ily is important to a meaningful life, that is a value to me. I live my life for my family, I vote on issues affecting my family, and I spend

Chapter Seven Why Can't Everyone Be Just Like Us? 155

time and money on my family. Perhaps I even broaden this commit ment to acting in favor of family life throughout the United States and even the world. As often happens, I become so committed to my family that 1 find it difficult to understand how others who do not have a family life similar to mine can possibly find happiness. I may also claim that this lack makes them immoral or selfish. I find threats to my family and family life in general to be important threats to my existence, and I support efforts to rid society of these threats.

For some of us, freedom is an important value ("I should be free, all Americans should be free, and all people should be free"). Like wise, law and order might be a value, or religion, equality, artistic expression, education, a healthy body, physical beauty, tradition, in dividualism, friendship, helping others, living a moral life, making a lot of money, being a good citizen, and so on. These are all examples of what we regard as worthwhile. If I believe in them, they are my values; if you believe in them, they are yours. But there is no way ei ther one of us can prove that ours are better than the other person's, for whenever we try to do this, we inevitably come up against more and more value judgments, none of which can be proved.

Our values can be contradictory. Americans can believe in both a segregated society and equal opportunity for all, or they can find themselves simultaneously worshiping individualism and group loy alty. I find myself attracted to tradition and progress at the same time, and sometimes I am torn between spending my time writing a book and listening to the concerns of my wife and children.

Most of our decisions in life involve choices we make between several values that we hold. We might value both freedom of expres sion and the rights of women. On the issue of pornography, we might have to choose between these values: "Yes, I value freedom of expres sion, but I don't think people have the right to produce pornography that denigrates women." Or on matters of civil rights: "Of course, I favor equality for all races. But I also believe that people should go to schools in their own neighborhoods." It is not always easy to tum our backs on one of our values so that we can work for another, but on occasion we must do just that. And, of course, this causes conflict in most of us whenever we recognize the contradiction.

Values and Making Value Judgments

Judging other people is how values enter our social life. We like oth ers from the value judgments we make: "He is a true individual." "She

157

156 Ten Queslion_~: A Sociological Perspective

is a really ambitious person. W "I respect the fact that he speaks up." "She is really pretty." We also dislike others based on value judgments we make: "He's dishonest. "She's stuck up." "They're immoral."W "They're lazy." In each case we create a measuring stick (a value) and use it to judge others. Judging, of course, is more than liking or not liking others. It is also deciding who should be punished, who should be promoted, whose death is called for, or who should live a happy life. It is deciding who must be changed, and whom we make war on.

When we ask, "Why can't others be just like us?" we are asking a question based on a yardstick we have somehow developed. It is a question that is at heart a statement of values, a statement that our ways are better than others' ways and that to make a better world, others should become like us.

All of us probably do this type of judging on occasion. Some of us do it often. But value judgments are statements of preference, not fact. There is no way to prove that "my pa's better than your pa pa" unless we specify what We mean by "better," and as soon as we do that, we are making a value judgment, which really is an assump tion about what is preferable in fatherhood.

Several issues brought up in this chapter are at the core of many controversies in our society today. These issues come up time and time again in Washington, D.C., in the various states, in the media, and in our everyday interactions.

Many political, religious, and economic leaders argue that our values are not simply socially developed; they are either handed down by a supernatural being or they are freely arrived at by the individual. Many argue that our values are true and self-evident; it is unneces sary to have to prove them. Finally, many argue that standing injudg ment of others is not a problem-in fact, because our values are the right ones, those who act contrary to our values must be wrong.

For the sociologist, these ideas concerning values that arise from many leaders in society need to be examined more critically if we are to understand human beings. For the sociologist. these ideas have contributed to serious problems within societies and among societies. They are not ideas that are wrong necessarily, but they are ideas that need to be more carefully examined. As they stand, they are much too simple and misleading. In the end, they cause the seri ous thinker to confront and try to answer one of the most basic human questions of all: When is it necessary to take a stand and judge others, and when should we cease judgment and accept their differences? This is hardly ever an easy question to answer, except

Why Can 'I Everyone Be Just Like Us?

1 Chapter Seven

for the tiny few who always judge others and the tiny few who never judge. Let me briefly state how sociologists tend to approach

values and making judgments about others.

1. Values, like ideas and rules, are cultural. We must always remember that our values are anchored in our social life. That does not mean they are wrong. They are our prefer ences, and people, because of their social life, learn to have

different preferences. 2. Human beings tend to believe their own values are true and right, they regularly defend them, and they often try to convince others to consider their goodness. For example, I have learned in my social life that equality of opportunity and personal freedom are important. I am angry when these values are violated. I try to convince others to believe in these values. I sometimes condemn those who act contrary to them.

3. Values are matters ofpreference, and it is impossible to prove that certain ones are the true ones for all to follow. They are not statements of fact, but commitments to what we think life should be. Most of us try hard to make our values seem factuaL absolute, true, but ultimately it is a matter of faith and commitment rather than proof. We might claim these are the true values because they are given to us by God; we might claim people can survive or find meaning only if they follow our specific values; and we might claim that since most people follow these values they must be the right ones. Perhaps we need to make such claims for per sonal or social reasons, but for us to understand human action we must continue to recognize that value judgments remain value judgments and are not provable facts.

4. All humans have values and all make judgments about other people based on those values. The serious student must under stand why this is necessary for us to do, and what some of the consequences can be when we make such judgments.

I have values and I make judgments of others that are socially constructed. Therefore, as a member of a group I must believe in these values and judge others. I want to. Sexism and racism are wrong to me. They violate my view of what the world should be. Op pression of people in any form violates what I hold to be right. These

\II~:I Ii !.l

159 158

Ten Questions: A SodologicaI Perspective

are the values I have dedded to fight for; these are the values I use to judge other people's actions and to tell people they should change.

Not all of my values lead me to judge other people. Some I try only to apply to my own life and not judge others because they vio late them. I believe in planning for the future, formal education, hav ing a good family, and not wasting time-I try hard to understand why others might not agree with these values; if I am successful, I do not jUdge them because I know they are my values and not theirs.

This chapter, then, is an examination of ethnocentrism, the ten dency for almost all people to judge people who are different from them. It argues that there are reasons why people become ethno centric, that ethnocentrism is sometimes important for keeping sod ety together, but that it also has serious negative consequences and is responsible for many problems in the world.

Meaning of Ethnocentrism

Consider what happens as people interact on a continuous basis. Each acts with the others in mind, people act back and forth, and each considers the acts of the others. The more they interact With one another, the less each has an opportunity to encounter out siders. "Going steady" is a case in point. It usually means cutting off regular interaction with other people of the opposite sex. Going steady also sometimes means cutting off regular interaction with friends of the same sex. One relationship takes over, and time is short for others. It is difficult to have close friendships with many other people simply because a close friendship takes time and com mitment; the more it takes, the less time we have to develop others.

Over time, continuous interaCtion develops a likeness among the actors, who communicate, share and discuss experiences, and adopt rules, ideas, and values in their relationship. They devise ways of dealing with the world they encounter. They develop a language that has a unique meaning to them. In short, they develop culture.

At the same time, continuous interaction isolates actors from outsiders. Differences with those outside the interaction are created and accentuated, communication does not occur regularly, and shar ing ideas proves increasingly difficult. In time, actors develop a set of meanings, understandings, and values different from the outsiders.

What happens, of course, is that outsiders not only appear differ i ; j., ent, but also come to be seen as strange-maybe deviant, ill, or evil.· ....•.:!.....~.... '.1..

We make value judgments on the basis of what we are familiar with. ·' !.1' 'II I•,!I

Chapter Seven Why Can't Everyone Be Just Like Us?

We judge others on the basis of the world in which we interact. It is common for us to develop what sodologists call ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism means that people think their culture ("ethno") is central ("centrism") to the universe. It is a tendency to use what we have shared-values, ideas, and rules-as a starting point for think ing about and judging other people. It is possible to see other people as different without making value judgments, but it is difficult. We tend to think in terms of what we have learned in interaction, and it is hard for most of us to stand back and declare: "They are different. So what? That doesn't mean they are any worse than we are. That doesn't mean their ways were developed as a critique of our ways."

Ethnocentrism involves (1) the development of truths, values, and norms--culture-in sodal interaction; (2) the perception of oth ers through that culture; and (3) the judging of what others think and do according to that culture. Ethnocentrism involves a tendency to assume that one's own culture is right, and that others by defini tion must in fact be wrong. It is believing that what is in fact a sodal construction-arrived at through social interaction-is true and right. Ethnocentrism involves little or no evidence, but assumes that one's socially constructed truths are correct, that one's socially de veloped rules are morally right, and that one's socially constructed values are better than others. This tendency is different from trying to prove the truth or falsehood of an idea through argument and evidence: It is assuming that others are wrong because they are dif ferent from what you believe is true, right. and worthwhile.

Think of ethnocentrism existing throughout our social existence, from the smallest group we join to the society we live in. Actually, we might even imagine the earth as a whole and think what would happen if we encountered a world with different beings. In every case we see interaction, sharing, isolation, differences from outsiders, and the tendency to develop feelings of ethnocentrism. Not all indi viduals fall into this trap, but virtually every sodal organization does. Why? Why is there such a strong tendency for people in a sodal or ganization to make value judgments about people outside that orga nization and declare: "Why can't everyone be just like us?"

The Reasons for Ethnocentrism

Sodal Interaction Encourages Ethnocentrism Ethnocentrism develops first simply because of the nature of interac tion. We interact and share; we become organized, form a structure

160 Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective

and institutions, share a culture, and thus tend to become isolated from others with whom we do not interact. Groups develop differ ences from one another, as do formal organizations, communities, societies. Without interaction with outsiders, differences become dif ficult to understand and hard not to judge. What is real to us becomes comfortable; what is comfortable becomes right. What we do not un derstand becomes less than right to us. Ethnocentrism is encouraged.

Loyalty to an Organization Encourages Ethnocentnsm

Ethnocentrism also develops, however, because of the nature of so cia I organization. As we interact and become part of a society or a group, we generally come to feel something good about belonging to that group. We not only are American, but also come to feel good about being American. We support our troops in the world; we tend to give our leaders any benefit of the doubt when there is conflict with other nations. Our identity becomes tied to what we feel good about. Life takes on meaning in that organization. We feel good that we belong to something. I am a Marine, a Xerox employee, an Elk, a New Yorker, a student at Harvard, a member of the National Asso ciation for the Advancement of Colored People. Belonging brings di rection, comfort, and security. It brings a social anchor to our lives, giving meaning to what we do and more certainty to what we be lieve. Becoming part of a social organization (a small group of friends, a large society) encourages a sense of loyalty, and that loyalty encourages ethnocentrism. Loyalty means a commitment to Some thing we regard as important and right. It brings a feeling of obliga tion to serve and defend. Criticism and threats to the organization are defended against. It is easy to see alternative ideas, values, rules, and actions as threats to what we feel loyalty to rather than simply qualities that are different from ours. This is a basic cause ofethnocentrism.

Socialization Encourages Ethnocentrism

The defenders of an organization-a society, community, formal or ganization, or group--encourage ethnocentrism by what they teach. To the extent they stress loyalty, ethnocentrism flourishes. Rituals are developed and function to bring people together and reaffirm what is right-that is, the organization and its ways. People are en couraged through song, secret ceremonies, flags, dress, and state ments of faith to feel their identities are tied to the organization; "1

Chapter Seven Why Can·t Everyone Be Just Like Us? 161

am an Iranian." "1 am a Lutheran." "1 am an IBM employee." "This is who I am. This gives my life meaning." It is a lot easier for defend ers of society to ensure cooperation by encouraging loyalty than by any other means. Teaching such loyalty encourages people to see their organization as right; it generally contributes to ethnocentrism.

Of all the sociologists who have investigated this phenomenon of loyalty, Emile Durkheim is the most important. One of the ways in which loyalty is learned and felt is through representations of the community, which Durkheim calls "sacred objects." Religious sym bols are sacred objects (communion wine, a cross, a Bible, a cos tume, a church, a holy person). Certain political symbols are also sacred objects (a flag, a tomb, an anthem, a historical document, certain political offices). And some people regard various other ob jects as sacred (Elvis Presley's jeans, Babe Ruth's bat, Liberace's piano, and Martin Luther King's "1 Have a Dream" speech). Sacred objects take on a meaning significantly greater than their physical nature. A cross, for example, is not simply an artistic design or two pieces of wood tied together. On the one hand, such objects help bring the community together, because they are believed to repre sent the community and what it stands for. Whenever they are pro duced, people feel united, they feel good about being part of the community. On the other hand, such objects take on a sacred qual ity; they help make the group (actually a social organization) into something that is right and above the ordinary (a sacred commu nity). Loyalty is combined with the feeling that what is believed in the group is more than social. It is true, right, universal, and above the ordinary or mundane: It is sacred. Through the creation of sa cred objects, people are taught that their world is right, and this les son becomes embedded in their emotional life.

Thus, besides social interaction, feelings of loyalty develop and socialization occurs; together they encourage ethnocentrism. Loy alty is encouraged by leaders, rituals bring people together, and sa cred objects make us emotionally committed. Socialization teaches us to be loyal and that our rules, beliefs, and values are not simply something we happen to agree on as a society, but that they are spe cial, right, and true. Teachers, political and religious leaders, and families cooperate to demonstrate to the individual that our ways are universally true and good, that they are part of a sacred order rather than simply a social order. This must, in fact, lead to ethno centrism, for if our society possesses what is true and good in uni versal terms, it becomes difficult to believe that societies that are

163 162

Ten Questions: A Sodological Perspective Chapter Seven Why Can't Everyone Be Just Like Us?

different can also be true and good. The tendency is for people to see truth and goodness in others according to that which comes clos est to what they consider to be true and good. This tendency leads to the identification and punishment of deviance; this, in turn, con tributes to even more ethnocentrism.

The Creation ofDeviance Encourages Ethnocentnsm

Wherever there is culture, there will be individuals who disagree and violate that culture. Lines are drawn, and people are punished. Punishment shows all members of society that indiViduality can go only so far. It shows them the consequences of Violating rules.

On the one hand, ethnocentrism encourages condemnation of others; on the other hand, condemnation of others encourages eth nocentrism. To sociologists, deviants are individuals who are per ceived as violators of society's rules, truths, and values. They are Moutsiders" in that they are placed outside of what people know is true and right. They are barbarian, uncivilized, savage, criminal, in sane. Each society creates its own outsiders by draWing lines: MOver this line there is something wrong with you." The lines shift but al ways exist. To accept widespread individuality is to admit there is re ally nothing special about the culture in which we are all supposed to believe. It is to encourage individuals to question, to see the social basis for much of what they believe rather than a more absolute basis. The actual creation of lines, the identification of certain people as outside those lines, the punishment threatened and dispensed to those who cross those lines, and the lasting stigma attached to the punished are ways in which people in society reaffirm their rules, re inforce the sacredness of those rules, and simultaneously create eth nocentrism-the reaffirmation of what society stands for and holds true and right. In a very basic sense, punishment creates throughout the community a greater certainty that Mwe are indeed right."

Dominance and Oppression Create Ethnocentrism

The slave trade that prospered from the seventeenth to the early nineteenth centuries was the product of people who realized that there was a fortune to be made by uprooting, transporting, and op pressing large numbers of people without any concern for their own desires, plans, values, or ways of life. Like most of the rest of hu manity, slave traders and slave owners probably believed in God, fl

:1: ,

:,' , .L

and they probably considered themselves good. upstanding citizens of their world. It is too easy for us to dismiss them as insane or evil. How, in fact, did they live with themselves? Did they have con science? Did they consider themselves to be moral people?

Cases of inhumanity exist in every people's history. The United States systematically destroyed Native Americans. The Germans murdered millions of people who were defined as less human. Southeast Asia and Yugoslavia in the 1980s and 1990s have been filled with more examples of one group of people systematically and intentionally killing others whom they define as different.

What is the link between such oppression and ethnocentrism? Without question, ethnocentrism sometimes encourages war, sys tematic murder. slavery, exploitation, and inequality. Yet it is also true that ethnocentrism is the result of such acts. Racism did not precede (and cause) slavery; it is clear from the historical record that it was the existence of slavery that influenced the development of racism. Slavery was developed for economic gain, not because one group was seen to be inferior. A racist philosophy in turn developed to try to justify and protect that institution.

Extend this argument to any instance of inhumanity. Where peo ple oppress others, there normally needs to be a justification for their actions to convince themselves and others that what they do is all right. Some form of ethnocentrism is generally the result. It is all right to oppress, because "what they are" is less worthy than Mwhat we are." "God decided that our people should conquer and control the world. The sacrifice of others for our benefit is both necessary and right." The "old boys network" develops a rationale for its treatment of women that tells them that their own ways are superior; the employer who exploits cheap labor comes to believe that he or she is helping "those people" who do not need the same income as "people like us"; and the conquerors who grab the land and imprison or destroy those who owned it explain that "they didn't use it the right way anyway."

Recognize., then; thacethnocentrism is an ideology, a way of thinking that people use to justify to themselves and others the op pression of people unlike themselves. Where oppression exists, eth nocentrism is encouraged.

Social Conflict Encourages Ethnocentrism

Social conflict is an inherent part of all social life. Wherever there are differences or wherever there is scarcity, there is conflict-not neces

165 Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective164

sarily violent conflict, but at least a struggle over whatever is scarce. Interorganizational conflict (conflict between organizations) nor mally encourages ethnocentrism. War between societies is the best example, but less violent competition between companies, teams, or communities also reveals this tendency. Those with whom we do battle are portrayed as less worthy and deserving of our contempt:

We tend to impute to our enemies the most foul motives, often those that we have trouble avowing ourselves: [We tend to be lieve that] the enemy is inherently perfidious, insolent, sordid, cruel, degenerate, lacking in compassion, and enjoys aggression for its own sake. Everything he does tends to be interpreted in the most unfavorable light. (SIllBUTANI, 1970:226)

At the same time, when we are involved in conflict, we tend to describe our own motives and our own ways as noble.

[We maintain that] we seldom engage in wars because of greed. We fight for freedom and justice or in defense against unwar ranted aggression. We are strong, courageous, truthful, compas sionate, peace-loving, and self-sacrifidng. We respect the independence of others and are loyal to our allies. (IBID., 226)

In conflict with others, we tend to idealize our own ways. We selectively see who they and we are. We exaggerate their faults and exaggerate our own virtues. Enemies are transformed from human beings to objects without rights; it becomes increasingly difficult to see the world from their perspective. What we do against the enemy becomes more acceptable to us, because we are able to rationalize the defense of goodness against evil. Conflict leads us to increase our ethnocentrism, and increasing our ethnocentrism serves to justify and increase conflict. The two build on each other; over time the world increasingly appears to be a struggle between good and evil. The 1990-91 crisis in the Persian Gulf, for example, became a strug gle between the "forces of good" as represented by President George Bush and the "forces of evil" as represented by President Saddam Hussein. Georg Simmel (1908) reminds us that interorganizational conflict not only encourages group loyalty but also exerts pressures for conformity to silence internal dissent. "Moderate and reasonable men are virtually immobilized, and the public gets a constant repeti tion of a single point of view" (Shibutani, 1970:228). In time of war, a society is most sensitive to criticism among its own population. Such criticism is perceived as disloyalty, just as the social conflict with

Chapter Seven Why Can't Everyone Be Just Like Us?

outsiders is perceived to be a threat to everything that is right. It is much easier to tolerate dissent when the society is at peace. Social conflict brings out the rightness of our cause, our ways, our truths. It is difficult for participants to stop this cycle of social conflict, increas ing ethnocentrism, and persecution of minority opinion once it has begun. Gang fights, wars, and cutthroat business practices are often the result. In short, interorganizational conflict encourages people to believe in the rightness of their cause, their ways, their truths.

Summary

Ethnocentrism is very common. We have looked at five reasons for it, most of them embedded in the very nature of social organization:

1. Interaction itself encourages ethnocentrism, just because it causes us to be around certain people, to be isolated from other people, and to become acquainted with and accus tomed to certain views and not others. Over time, those with whom we do not interact appear different, strange,

and, often, less worthy.

2. Feelings of loyalty to organization contribute to ethnocen trism. Loyalty develops as we feel commitment, and it is encouraged by those who represent the organization. Ritual and sacred objects encourage loyalty. Both help make a cul ture sacred in the minds of those who belong.

3. Efforts by representatives ofsociety to socialize the individual also contributes to ethnocentrism. We are taught that societal rules and values are right, societal ideas true. Socialization succeeds so well for many of us that the idea we are being taught a socially agreed on reality is out of the question. Instead, we accept what is taught without careful appraisal, and normally culture becomes taken for granted by us.

4. Stigmatizing others as deviant reaffirms and encourages eth nocentrism. We condemn and punish violators of our rules, those who have different values than ours, and questioners of our truths. In so doing, we convince ourselves that our culture is right, we draw lines between us and those whom we regard as threats, and socialize new members about what is and is not acceptable. All of this involves setting up our culture as the measuring stick of individual behavior, thus

contributing to ethnocentrism.

166 Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective

s. Oppression ofothers encourages ethnocentrism, because ethnocentrism serves the oppressor by justifying actions taken against others by declaring them to be less worthy.

6. Conflict with outsiders creates ethnocentrism. Conflict prompts us to denigrate the other side and to develop more extreme degrees of ethnocentrism to justify our actions. Silencing dissent in times of conflict results from equating criticism of society with disloyalty; conformity and ethno centrism are equated with loyalty.

Human Differences

NWhy can't everyone be just like us?" The question usually implies a value judgment. (N After all, our ways are better!") The question therefore is itself ethnocentric. (NOur ideas, values, norms are right; those that differ from ours are less right.")

However, let us ask the question without making a value judg ment, without being ethnocentric. Let us become more scholarly and objective and phrase the question differently: NWhy are people different from one another?" NWhy are societies different?" .Why are communities, groups, and formal organizations different from one another?"

Sodallnteraction and Human Differences

We should already know part of the answer. Earlier in the chapter I pointed out that interaction brings differences. As people interact with one another, they are pulled together and, at the same time. they are sepa rated from others. Interaction means that people share, they become familiar. they increasingly depend on one another, they form social patterns-culture, structure, institutions-and they become used to what they have formed. Over time their world becomes part of them, and it appears to be a natural part of the universe.

It is this interaction and the patterns that result that distinguish people from one another. My ideas, values, morals, and traditions are different from yours because the groups within which we were formed are different. I have been influenced by different social orga nizations. Drugs and alcohol are not part of my life because my in teraction has not taken me in that direction. The religious beliefs I hold are traceable to my interaction, and so are my interests and tal ents. My life is different from yours in part because I grew up in

Chapter Seven Why Can't Everyone Be Just Like Us? 167

Minneapolis and moved to Moorhead, and you stayed in Minneapo lis. My life is different from yours because I interact with sociologists and your contacts are different.

The real meaning of social organization is that it brings com monality, communication, and cooperation with those inside, and it also brings differentiation from, lack of communication with, and much less cooperation with those outside. Interaction and organiza tion bring internal unity and external differences. So long as there is interaction and so long as that interaction does not include everyone at one time, it is impossible for all ofus to be the same.

Social History and Human Differences

No two societies (or groups or formal organizations or communities) develop in the same way. All have a different history. The unique as pects of their development will produce differences between those inside and those outside society, making it impossible for Nthem" to be like "us." Societies may appear to be alike in that all have impor tant charismatic leaders in their history-a Lenin, a Luther, a Muhammad, a Napoleon, or a Gandhi-but each leader will have brought a unique set of changes, unlike the leaders in other soci eties. Each society will have a mixture of tradition and moderniza tion, and that mixture will always be unique. Each may depend heavily on one major religion, and in that sense they will be similar, but each religion will be different in several basic ways. Even when two have the same religion (Catholicism, for example), each will. in fact, be different, because the religion will exist within a larger so cial context. Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Indonesia may all be Muslim, but the life, ideas, values, and even the religion of the people will differ considerably because of their different histories.

All social organizations have unique histories and thus create different social patterns from all others. I belonged to both a poker group and an investment group in Minneapolis. When I moved to another city, I helped form these groups anew. The groups in Min neapolis still exist; in Fargo-Moorhead they also exist. Even though I tried to form the same groups that existed in Minneapolis, they evolved much differently. Why can't the groups in Fargo-Moorhead be just like the ones in Minneapolis? Because they differed in their histories: their experiences, problems, solutions, and social patterns.

NWhy is it so difficult for African Americans in the United States to make it? Other minorities have. Other immigrant groups have.

169 168 Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective

The Jewish people have. The Japanese Americans are. What is dif ferent about the African Americans?" The answer to this question is complex, but part of it is found in the different social histories. It lies in the history of the United States (in the force that brought Africans to the Americas, in the institution of slavery, in the Civil War. in post-Civil War conflict and domination, in the immigration of large numbers of whites in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cen turies, and in the migration of African Americans from Southern rural areas to Northern urban areas during and after World War I). It lies in the nature of the historical relationship between whites and African Americans (the patterns of segregation, poverty, exclusion, and domination that prevailed for hundreds of years). It lies in our interaction patterns in a highly segregated society, which led to sep arate communities without open interaction and communication, encouraging different and sometimes clashing social patterns. It lies in a heritage of mistrust and hopelessness, fostered by discrimina tion in every area of American life. African Americans are different from every other minority in our history; so, too, are Jewish Ameri cans, Japanese Americans, Native Americans, and Mexican Ameri cans. There is no reason to believe that these groups are the same simply because they are or were disadvantaged.

Problems and Social Patterns

People therefore differ from one another because their interaction separates them and their unique histories create different social pat terns. Groups, formal organizations, communities, and societies also develop differently because the problems they encounter are different. Or ganizations develop structure, culture, and institutions that work. China cannot be like the United States because the problems it must solve are very different from those in the United States and call for different social patterns. For example, the problem of unity and so cial order has always plagued China. China has really been many societies, not one, and there has been a strong tradition of division. The history of China is one of separate feudal empires, fighting war lords, decentralized governments, and decentralized economies. In contrast, the United States, although it began as separate states, has a stronger tradition of unity, fostered by the Revolutionary War and the founding of a society separate from England, forced by the Civil War, and encouraged by transportation, communication, and eco nomic systems that developed rapidly after the Civil War. China also

Chapter Seven Why Can't Everyone Be Just Like Us?

has been conquered by Japan and attacked by the Soviet Union and has developed a mistrust of its neighbors. This fact influences its ways. The United States, on the other hand, has never lost wars to its neighbors and has not developed this same fear. Finally, the mas sive population problems created out of a long history of loyalty to family and tradition as well as a long history of widespread poverty have made China a different society from the United States.

Given these different problems, how can we think that U.S. and Chinese societies can be alike? How can we imagine that what workS here is going to work there? Private enterprise may be a great insti tution in the United States, but it is difficult to transplant to a soci ety with different problems and which has traditionally valued

kinship and community over individualism. Baseball teams that win pennants cannot be like baseball teams

that are trying to win their first game. Universities that graduate those who fill elite positions cannot be like universities that try to offer some education to everyone who wants it. Communities that have serious pollution problems cannot be like communities that

must solve the problem of unemployment. We are often tempted to compare ourselves with other societies,

bragging about our progress or even complaining about something we would like improved. Many of us in education yearn for the ed ucational system of a Great Britain or a Singapore. However, the purpose of our educational system has always been different from those of other societies. We have tried to build a high school system that equalizes opportunity as much as possible and a university sys tem that appeals to the needs of the entire population. Our resulting institutions have therefore been different. For good or for bad, ours is an open system in which we give the individual many opportuni ties for success, and until we radically change the purpose of our schools, it is impossible to build a school system similar to those in other SOCieties. If we accepted only the most academically talented in our high schools and then closed the universities to all but the most talented, we could develop a system of education similar to those in other societies, but the whole purpose of education would change and with it the whole nature of our society. Institutions do not develop in a vacuum. Our ways have developed around values and problems that we have designated as important.

Simply put, organizations differ from one another for three rea Sons: (1) interaction isolates and differentiates them, (2) their histo ries are unique, and (3) the problems with which their social

171 170 Ten Questions: A Sociological Perspective

patterns must deal are different, and this influences what patterns develop.

A fourth reason should be pointed out. Remember that earlier in this chapter we explored ethnocentrism. the tendency for us to regard our ways as right and others' ways as less attractive. Ethno centrism enters into why we are all different. As we begin to be different from others, we fight for what we are, we defend the ways that we are used to. We are reluctant to give up what we have in order to become ulike them,· and we do what we can to protect our ways. Who wants to be like the strangers anyway? If they try to force us, we will use force. If they try to convert us, we will pull back into our community. Not only do we try to maintain our differences, but also conflict with others actually encourages us to hold on to our differences, to maintain our separate identities as much as we can.

Summary and Conclusion

You and I exist in a social context. Where we happen to live our lives and with whom we live will influence who we are, what we do, and what we believe. This, in turn, will make you and me differ ent from each other. The intensity of our interaction, the history, problems, and patterns of our organizations, together with the feel ings of ethnocentrism that inevitably arise in organizations, will keep us different, and although it might seem someday that you are be coming more and more like me (or vice versa), we should expect that differences will remain and that they will always be substantial.

It is easy to forget the role of social organization in creating the differences between people. In the 1990s we were too often at tracted to racial or biological differences as explanations. It is easy to explain differences on the basis of how people look physically; it is too easy to equate belief and behavior with physical appearance. Bi ological differences, although they are sometimes important for un derstanding individual differences, are much less relevant to under standing differences between groups or societies.

We can never have a world where all agree and cooperation is perfect. When it really comes down to it. why should we want that anyway? Human differences are not necessarily bad, and a very strong case can be made that they are good. Diversity, for example, encourages a dynamic approach to understanding anything in the universe. It enCQurages us to evaluate who we are, how we live, and

Chapter Seven Why Can't Everyone Be Just Like Us?

what,we believe. Diversity brings alternatives to what we know, _new solutions to problems we encounter, and new meanings to our lives. It can teach us respect for differences and humility concerning our own views of reality. It can bring a people a much richer democ racy, because it can teach them mutual respect rather than simply acceptance of what the majority wants.

And ethnocentrism? Is that good or bad? It depends on our val ues, of course. It seems that ethnocentrism may contribute to social solidarity and social order. It helps bind us, and it creates in us a com mitment to-society. It makes it easier to follow the rules, because the rules seemTight. Ethnocentrism makes us feel good about who we are and more cert-am about what we believe. It gives us an anchor; it

.llelps liS decide waatis and is not good in the world. It encourages "our cormmmity to retain its unique qualities. Some ethnocentrism is undoubtedly necessary for the continuation of society.

On the other hand, ethnocentrism is costly. From the stand point of society it discourages innovation and change as well as the solution of serious problems. People become opposed to change when it is perceived to threaten qualities in society that they cher ish. There is a tendency to ignore serious social problems, because their solution is not worth giving up what we cherish. In fact, eth nocentrism discourages us from finding creative approaches to solv ing problems, because we are also generally committed to our particular way of solving our problems.

From the standpoint of the individual, ethnocentrism gets in the way of some important values we may hold. It hinders our under standing of other people, for it makes us too quick to judge those who are different. It encourages narrow-mindedness and an unwillingness to recognize many human differences for what they are. Ethnocen trism not only stands in the way of understanding others, but also hampers us in understanding ourselves, because we never can appre ciate the fact that we, our society, and our society's rules and truths are, to a great extent, part of a social reality. Ethnocentrism tends to confuse culture with truth; it makes us feel that what we believe is true and right rather than socially developed and open to criticism.

Finally, ethnocentrism too often encourages and justifies inhu manity. It is used by political opportunists to gain support for perse 'cuting and warring against others, to justify stealing from and enslaving others. It leads to persecuting minorities and destroying in dividuals whose only sin is that they are different from the rest of us.

Ten Queslions: A Sociological Perspective172

The dilemma is that ethnocentrism fosters the continuation of society and the security of its members, yet it undermines important qualities that many regard as central to a democratic society.

WHY CAN'T EVERYONE BE JUST LIKE US?