[KS] Re: Ethnocentrism Re: Olympic Partners?/Spirit

[Nancy Lee]

REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

On 23-Sep-00, HKHogarth at aol.com wrote:
 
 
> In the recent discussions about the Korean media coverage of the Olympic
> games, I think the word 'ethnocentrism' used by some list members is a
> misnomer.  'Ethnocentrism' refers to 'evaluating other races and cultures
> by criteria specific to one's own (The Oxford English Dictionary).'

And the opposite of course would be evaluating other races and cultures by
universal rather than by culture-specific criteria.  If anybody ever finds
out what these "universal" criteria are, please let me know.  I for one am
eager to transcend my racial/cultural origins and attain omniscience.

All joking aside, I don't mean to dispute the correctness and the
authority of the OED (!).  But I would like to point out that these days
"ethnocentric" is commonly used (correctly or not) with a connotation of
obnoxiousness that the OED's definition doesn't quite warrant.  Simply
having and employing your own culture-specific criteria may or may not lead
others to label you as ethnocentric (it may just lead them to reflect that
after all there is no such thing as a person who is entirely free of
cultural conditioning).  But denying that one's own culturally-influenced
criteria ARE culture-specific, and expecting/demanding people from other
cultures to recognize them as "universal" and agree with them, is not only
ethnocentric, it's also likely to be highly unpopular.

As an example, a European who compares the differences between public
transportation in Korea and public transportation in his home country, and
who states a strong preference for public transportation in his home
country and strong dislike of public transportation in Korea, is being
subjective (ALL preferences are subjective) and is certainly being
ethnocentric according to the O.E.D. definition, but is not being
ethnocentric in the negative sense I have described.

But an American who jumps in and castigates the European for failing to
criticize public transportation in the U.S. is being ethnocentric.  Because
the American is not simply giving his (American) point of view, and
acknowledging it to be his point of view: he is presuming/demanding that
all discussion about Korea must be informed by knowledge of the U.S.
("universal" knowledge) and center around an American point of view.

If the American compares the differences between public transportanion in
Korea and public transportation in his home country, and states his
preference, then he is doing exactly what the European is doing.  Nothing
remarkably more ethnocentric about one than the other.  The results of
their evaluations may differ, but their method of evaluating is exactly
the same.  Strictly speaking they are both being ethnocentric according to
the OED definition.  But if the American demands that the European consider
Korean public transportation in an American context, then in addition the
American is being ethnocentric in a pushy way that the European is not.

(BTW I am not trying to characterize all Americans as pushy.  But it was
easier to use the example of an American and a European than a Martian and
a Venusian.)


> Covering only the athletes of one's own country cannot possibly be called
> 'ethnocentrism.' It may be called 'nationalisitc', or even 'egocentric,'
> but not 'ethnocentric.'

I think you mean "chauvinistic" not "egocentric."  


> The BBC coverage of the Olympic Games has been relatively fair. They have
> presented most important events, whether there are British medal
> contenders or not, although British participants naturally get a special
> coverage. The emphasis appears to be put on the public's interest in a
> particular event. But that does not mean that the British as a nation are
> free from ethnocentrism. Far from it, as a nation, they are no different
> from any other people in that respect, or possibly worse.

I can imagine a hypothetical nation having the point of view that the
highest purpose of competitive sports is to encourage teamwork, patriotism
and group identity (after all not all citizens can be athletes -- but all
citizens CAN be inspired to work together for a common goal), and that
serving up sports as mere entertainment and spectacle is the height of
decadence.  From that point of view, media coverage that strives to be
balanced and show all sides would be regarded as decadent and socially
irresponsible.

(But actually, this "hypothetical nation" I just made up, sounds a lot like
the blue-collar community I grew up in in the midwestern U.S.  You were
*supposed* to be biased -- it wasn't called bias, it was called "team
spirit."  And lack of "team spirit" was regarded as something akin to
treason against one's community.  Because, after all, if factory workers
don't think of themselves as a team and work like one, the whole enterprise
goes to hell in a handcart.  Valuing detachment and eschewing bias is for
scholars, not factory workers.  :)  If scholars made up the majority of the
televison-viewing audience in a given country, sports coverage would no
doubt reflect their taste.) 


Cheers,

Nancy Lee