you see this map through ethnocentric eyes and through the eyes of a cultural relativist?
U.S. foreign relations illustrate how ethnocentrism can produce hostility. Many U.S. citizens are surprised to learn that the United States—a great democracy; world power; and disseminator of food, medicine, and technological assistance to developing nations—is despised in many countries. Anti-U.S. sentiments in South America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe have brought this reality to life through television broadcasts of demonstrations against the U.S. government. Across the globe, 38% of people in 30 nations now say U.S. power and influence pose a major threat to their countries, up from 13% in 2013. This is now comparable to worries over Chinese and Russian power in the world (Manevich and Chwe 2017). The countries with the most negative opinion of the United States, according to polls, include Jordan (83%), Russia (81% unfavorable, up from 33% in 2010), Palestinian territories (70%), Pakistan (62%), Lebanon (60%), Turkey (58%) and China (49%) (Wike, Stokes, and Poushter 2015). In the most recent polls of public attitudes toward the United States, 72% of Turks and 61% of Mexicans report negative feelings toward the country (Manevich and Chwe 2017; see Figure 3.3). One cause for the unfavorable feelings in these countries is the political dominance of the United States and the perceived threat it poses to other people’s way of life. In many places of the world, people believe the U.S. government and its citizens think only about their own welfare as their country exploits weaker nations. U.S. tourists are sometimes seen as loudmouthed ignoramuses whose ethnocentric attitudes prevent them from seeing value in other cultures or from learning other languages.
▼ Figure 3.3 Global Perceptions of U.S. Power and Influence
Source: Manevich and Chwe 2017, Pew Research Center.
Note: Percentages are global medians across 30 countries.
Note that even referring to citizens of the United States as “Americans”—as though people from Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America do not really count as Americans—is seen as ethnocentric by many people from these other countries. America and the United States of America are not the same thing, but many people in the United States, including some presidents, fail to make the distinction, much to the dismay of other North, South, and Central Americans. If you visit the United Mexican States (Mexico’s official name), people might ask you where you are from. Say “America,” and they, too, will say they are from America. Say “North America,” and Mexicans will say “From Canada or the United States of America?”
Not all ethnocentrism is hostile; some of it is just a reaction to the strange ways of other cultures. An example is making judgments about what is proper food to eat and what is just not edible. Although people everywhere must eat, we can see widespread cultural differences in what people eat, as noted in the first part of this chapter. Some New Guinea tribes savor grasshoppers; Europeans and Russians relish raw fish eggs (caviar); Inuit children may find seal eyeballs a treat; some Indonesians eat dog; and some Nigerians prize termites. Whether it is from another time period or another society, variations in food can be shocking to those who do not eat the delicacies.
In contrast to ethnocentrism, cultural relativism requires setting aside cultural and personal beliefs and prejudices to understand another group or society through the eyes of its members and using its own community standards. Instead of judging cultural practices and social behavior as good or bad according to one’s own cultural practices, the goal is to be impartial in learning the purposes and consequences of practices and behaviors of the group under study. Cultural relativism does not require that social scientists accept or agree with all of the beliefs and behaviors of the societies or groups they study. Yet it allows them to try to understand those practices in the social and cultural contexts in which they occur.
Being tolerant and understanding is not always easy. Some behaviors or ideas in other cultures can be difficult for even the most objective observer to understand. The notion of being “on time,” for example, which is so much a part of the cultures of the United States, Canada, Japan, and parts of Europe, is a rather bizarre concept in some societies. Among most Native American people, such as the Dineh (Apache and Navajo), “clock time” is used when in contact with White institutions such as schools but of little use in their daily lives. To let a piece of machinery such as a cell phone govern the way one constructs and lives life is accommodated when necessary, but the Dineh orientation to time is that one should do things according to the natural rhythm of the body and other “timepieces” in nature (e.g., the moon), not according to an artificial electronic mechanism. This concept of time is difficult for many people outside some Native American cultures to grasp (Wells 2008). Misunderstandings occur when North Americans think that “Native Americans are always late” and jump to the erroneous conclusion that “Indians” are undependable. Native Americans, on the other hand, think Whites are neurotic about letting some instrument control them (Basso 1996; Farrer 2011; Hall 1981, 1983). The Sociology in Our Social World above looks at some of the social consequences of using “clock time” instead of “body time.”
Sociology in Our Social World
Clock Time and Body Time
In the Dance of Life, Edward T. Hall explores the difference between “clock time” and “body time.” In the history of humankind, clock time is a relatively recent phenomenon. Obviously, contemporary clocks are much more precise than just looking at where the sun is or even examining a sundial to tell time. Clocks have become both more precise and ever-present in our modern Western culture. Moreover, before the Western world began to have its influence in more remote areas of the Global South, some cultures did not have a time unit of less than half a day. Being “late” is less likely to happen if a single unit of time covers several hours. In the modern world, in our sporting events, and in our space exploration program, hundredths and even thousandths of seconds matter. Some of the ice skating speed racing events at the Olympics were won or lost by .001 of a second.
Clock time is externalized and objectified, as opposed to body time, which is internalized and subjective. Moreover, we in the Western or “modern” world are so obsessed with clock time that we wear clocks on our bodies or keep clock time ever present via smartphones. Many wristwatches and virtually all smartphones now have stopwatches on them. Clock time is so normalized in our culture that some people evaluate worship services or sermons based on their length; God forbid that a sermon message should exceed 20 minutes!
Body time has to do with our intuitive sense of time as it is experienced, including internal rhythms such as breathing and heartbeat. On one of my first trips to the U.S. Southwest, I visited Taos Pueblo and discovered that a corn dance was to occur later that day. I asked a stupid question: “When will the dance begin?” Answer? “When the Taos elders feel that the community is moving in a common rhythm.” The start time had nothing to do with a clock. Notions of “using time,” “saving time,” or “time as money” are bizarre where body time is the dominant cultural motif.
Why do concepts of time matter? First, Western culture seems to be out of touch with body time. Yet the externalization of time (measurement by instruments) may put us out of touch with internal rhythms. We often eat when the clock says it’s time for lunch, not when our bodies tell us they need food. Second, when clock time begins to supersede body time and natural rhythms, our heart rate and respiration rhythms can speed up, and we stress out. Third, using different research methods, Edward Hall found an interesting social consequence related to rhythm that pointed to the same conclusion: When a spirit of harmony and solidarity exists in a group, the people tend to move to a common rhythm. Perhaps this is why so many groups—college Greek societies, faith communities, and civic groups like the Kiwanis—all have times when they sing together. Singing gets the group moving in a common
