Ethnocentrism, Moral Relativism, and The Theory of Modernization

A reflection on some aspects of sociological thought

Photo by the author

The beginnings of sociological thought

A society is an alive, changing, and unpredictable process. Like an organism, it can be well described as a co-relationship of different variables. People, environments and ideas make its body, while its mood and attitude reflects its soul.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, we can describe a society as:

“a large group of people who live together in an organized way, making decisions about how to do things and sharing the work that needs to be done. All the people in a country or several similar countries can be referred to as a society.”

The first scientific fields dedicated to the study of people and their social living were developed in the early 19th century, but many people have been thinking like social scientists long before disciplines like sociology, anthropology, or social psychology ever came to be.

Without even knowing it, people such as Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Khaldun, and many others were preparing the soil for what later grew into modern sociological thought.

What is a theory?

It is hard to imagine any scientific inquiry divorced from some type of theoretical thinking. But what is a theory, anyway? Using the American Museums of Natural History explanation, we can say that theory is either:

• a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world;
• a set of accepted beliefs or organized principles that explain and guide analysis;
• or a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

To gather data and come up with theories, scientists usually use one of two methods of thinking: inductive and deductive reasoning.

“Inductive reasoning is a method in which a body of observations is synthesized to come up with a general principle. It is often called the “bottom-up” principle and is widely used in qualitative research. Inductive reasoning is also a method from which new theories emerge.”

“Deductive reasoning is often defined as an application of general principles to particular cases. Sometimes it is called the “top-down” method and is widely used in quantitative research. This method is often used to prove and adapt existing theories.”

Although while conducting analysis scientists may often employ both of the aforementioned methods, in the social sciences deductive reasoning is more commonly seen as the go-to principle for sociologists, while inductive reasoning is more often used in anthropological circles.

Photo by Stéfano Girardelli on Unsplash

Some concerns relating to theoretical thinking

The main question relating to the concept of theory, at least in my mind, is whether they can describe elusive processes, without the loss of important content and information.

From one point of view, the use of various preconceived notions might help scientists to save valuable time while conducting their analysis. Why reinvent the wheel if it has already been invented? On the other hand, the application of ready-made models might cloud their vision, skewing the data and interfering with its interpretations.

What is ethnocentrism?

People are living and unpredictable creatures, who don’t like to be boxed into theoretical frameworks. The same applies to societies. Not all of them want to be called liberal, communist, or anarchist, and not all groups want to be described as nomadic, tribal, or modern.

Most of these words are the ideas that came from the minds of a few intellectuals, and they do not apply to the entirety of the human race. It’s just our (western) interpretation of things. If we believe that our ideas are applicable to everyone who existed, exists or is yet to exist, we are being myopic and ethnocentric.

“Ethnocentrism is the term anthropologists use to describe the opinion that one’s own way of life is natural or correct. Some would simply call it cultural ignorance, or an attitude that one’s own group, ethnicity, or nationality is superior to others.”

One place where we can see it occurring is in the idea that the western way of life is superior to all other ways of living. West is the best, as the slogan says. Another one is the Russian Federation’s belief that former soviet states are not nations. The third example can be the Marxist belief that a free capitalist economy is simply and only a disguised practice of slavery. All of these ideas are limited, narrow-minded, and unable to express the complexity of human living in its entirety. As in the words of J. B. Peterson:

“Ideologies are substitutes for true knowledge, and ideologues are always dangerous when they come to power, because a simple-minded I-know-it-all approach is no match for the complexity of existence.”

Photo by Katerina Pavlyuchkova on Unsplash

A case study: the theory of modernization

The theoretical framework of modernization suggests that there exist three types of societies: traditional, modern, and postmodern.

Through the lens of modernization, traditional societies are backward, non-progressive, and stuck in the past. Their primary goal is to become more like the wealthy, technologically advanced, and politically oriented modern states. Many societies have tried to imitate the model of modernity and achieved remarkable success, but not all communities want to be indoctrinated into the global, market-based economy. Some groups remain reluctant to renounce their old ways of living and don’t want to be subjected to foreign influences, even though the offers might be compelling.

“In sociology, traditional society refers to a society characterized by an orientation to the past, not the future, with a predominant role for custom and habit.” — says S. Langlois

Japan was closed off from most of the world until the late XIX century, Bhutan does not encourage tourism, and ethnic communities such as the Uighurs are still defending their cultural identities against colonial rule. Is such preservation good or bad? Well, it depends on whom you will ask. If you ask the community’s people — many of them might express a reluctance to adhere to foreign interventions and cultural norms. If you ask the groups who want to trade or use the community’s resources, probably they will say it’s not good, because they can’t get what they need or want.

If being oriented to the past is seen as traditional, what would constitute a society that is modern? Oftentimes, the term modernity directly correlates with the processes that we know as industrialization.

“Modern societies are based on using machines to produce goods. Sociologists refer to the period during the 18th century when the production of goods in mechanized factories began as the Industrial Revolution.” — says Kane Dane.

The Industrial revolution turned Great Britain into the world’s predominant superpower. With the help of coal and other energy sources, Great Britain began to develop at unprecedented rates. Not so long after, other countries tried to adopt their newly gained technological prowess to speed up the development of various sectors in their own communities.

Although the industrial revolution sparked a new era which we can be thankful for while thinking about our current comfort of living, it brought problems with it as well. One major issue of such innovation was and is the warming of our planet’s climate. Currently, many of us are blaming China and India for their reluctance to minimize the use of industrial coal, but we fail to remember that Europe was using it to boost its economies for the past 200+ years.

So if the use of fossil fuels is a prerequisite for economic growth, should we encourage or stigmatize people for using it? It’s complicated, we might say, but in that case, why not take the Western capital which was earned by burning fossil fuels and use it to up the developing economies by investing in their countries’ renewable energy? Two birds with one stone, ay?

Also, it is good to remember that Great Britain became a role model for many nations, not just because they wanted to imitate it. They also wanted to defend themselves from its militaristic and cultural influence. This, the hope to gain profit and want to increase the country’s quality of living sparked the process of industrialization across Europe and is still happening in many areas of the world to this day. As written in Encyclopedia.com:

“Modernization is the process of social change whereby less developed societies acquire characteristics common to more developed societies.”

It is a theory used to explain the process that a nation goes through as it transitions from a traditional society to a modern one, with an emphasis on the idea that modernizing should be every society’s primary objective.

I wonder what the Apache, the Iroquois, or the aboriginal people of Australia and other places would think of such a theory. Some might accept or even encourage it, but unfortunately, not many of them are alive to have a voice concerning it.

Moral relativism and postmodernity

Another common belief is that in the late 1990s, the West entered an era of postmodernity.

Disappointed in the modern promise of never-ending progress postmodernists tend to claim that science and technological advancement may not have all the solutions to all of our human problems as previously expected.

Marking a change in beliefs and values, the main postulate of postmodernism can be formulated in the following words:

“There is no one truth and objective reality does not exist. Rather, reality is a social construct and its interpretation is infinite.”

This poses a serious dilemma. If everything is up to interpretation and objectivity does not exist, that means that morals are relative as well as our beliefs about them. In that case, does the killing and fair treatment stand on the same moral ground? How about theft and reciprocity? Altruism and torture?

“Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of morality that advocates “to each his or her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

If I truly adhere to the idea that everything is equal and see myself as a postmodern person, when my neighbour beats his dog, kid, or wife I should probably say “who am I to judge?”, right? Wrong. Here, my ethnocentrism begins to peak…

For me, personally, it is hard to shake off the idea that there are some absolute and indeed universal truths and faults in life, and it does not matter whether everyone agrees with that or not. You don’t need to have rules of ethics telling that theft, rape or murder is wrong, right?

Unfortunately, that is not everyone’s point of view and neither anthropologists nor sociologists have come up with an idea of how to deal with this problem in their theoretical frameworks.

In conclusion

Our ideas of seeing the world often conflict with those of others, and we are often oblivious to the exact reasons why. Not all of us take into account the customs and norms of other people. In the process, we encourage avoidable arguments and limit communication.

In some circumstances, different ideas and customs might be hostile or even horrific, but sometimes — so can be ours.

Can we strike an accord between cultural extremes? Is there a middle ground where different cultures and identities can co-exist together, peacefully, without living on each other corpses? Some scientists have talked about the idea of “peace systems”, but that’s a topic for another time.

Thank you for reading!

If you’ve enjoyed this article, be sure to follow my account and leave a comment expressing your thoughts and opinions about the subject. Peace! ✨

Other articles you might like:

Rise And Shine! 4 Suggestions On How To Optimize Your Morning Routine By Andrew Huberman.

Environmental Ethics. What Can We Do To Lower Our Carbon Footprints?

Not yet a member?

Join Medium today by purchasing a 5US$ monthly membership and have access to all articles. Use my referral link to support me and enjoy the experience!

Join Medium with my referral link — Paulius Juodis