Are science and medicine culturally relative?

I would like to consider two non-religious examples, medicine and science, to see whether it is possible to be ethnorelative (Bennett's term) but believe that something is true.

In Tunisia, there was what they called "Arab medicine," which is how they referred to traditional Tunisian medical concepts, meds, etc., and what they called "French medicine," by which they meant Western or modern medicine.

To be ethnocentric toward Tunisian "Arab medicine" might be to discount it (as stupid, false, irrelevant, superstitious, backward, etc.) without understanding it, not to see it in its broader cultural context, etc. - i.e., to judge it from an outside frame of reference (that which I as an American know to be "true" in regard to medicine).

To be ethnorelative would involve understanding Tunisian "Arab medicine" within its cultural context, which could include understanding something of the history (how and why certain concepts or practices arose), cultural connections (including religious and other belief systems), contexts in which someone would use "Arab medicine," and how they would use it, etc.

"French medicine" came into Tunisia from outside (as has been common with the spread of modern technology, scientific and medical knowledge, etc., in modern times - don't forget, though, that at one point the Muslim world represented the high point of medical, scientific and other knowledge in the world). It has fit in, and functions within the system, alongside the traditional "Arab medicine" (within the society, the culture).

You can "prove" the "truth" of much of modern medicine, e.g., that bacteria and viruses exists, the effects of antibiotics (or the lack of using them) and other meds on various conditions, etc. (note, however, that modern doctors don't know everything, can't always figure out either what is wrong or what to do about it, and meds don't always "work" - there's an awful lot of guesswork and experimenting to see what effect a certain treatment has).

Is it ethnocentric for someone who is non-Tunisian to believe in the truth of modern medicine, and to bring it into Tunisia ("we bring you true medical knowledge and medicine")? I would have to say, that depends on the person's attitude and their interaction with Tunisian society and culture. It would certainly be possible to enter Tunisia as an outsider, with your modern medical knowledge and meds, in a way that trampled on the local people, treated them as ignorant, ignored their culture, etc., and acting as if everything modern or western was superior, etc. (I have heard Tunisians complain of the way certain Westerners have lived in Tunisia, in how they viewed and treated Tunisian culture). If your goal was to have a positive impact on Tunisia, through bringing modern medicine, you might well fail, if you came in an ethnocentric way.

On the other hand, it would be possible, I would think, to believe in the "truth" of modern medicine, and to introduce it to Tunisia in a non-ethnocentric way - if you cared about the local culture (and sociocultural context), sought to understand local medical beliefs and practices (as well as the broader culture), learned to adapt to the culture and relate well to the people (to see the world from their perspective), etc. You might offer modern medicine not in a "we are the civilized people and you are the ignorant barbarians" way, but in a "we have something that we have discovered, that might be of use to you, and we'd be glad to share it with you if you're interested" way, and (as mentioned) with an understanding of how things actually work culturally in Tunisia. (Note that the history of aid and development is littered with projects which failed because of lack of cultural understanding.)

Being ethnorelative rather than ethnocentric in introducing something like medical practices that you believe to be true, to another culture, means seeking to share the knowledge, practices, etc., without your own cultural "baggage," allowing those you give the info and practices to, to adapt them to their own cultural context in their own way.

I think the same would apply with scientific knowledge or truth, in various areas of science.

The other thing I'll say, at this point, is that in medicine and science, as in the "softer" areas of life, human beings "see through a glass darkly" - e.g., throughout history we have been certain of scientific and medical "truth," only to have our knowledge challenged, undermined, and changed at a later point in history. This has been true in all areas of knowledge, all areas of "truth." And this is one of the reasons that when it comes to relating to people who have other knowledge and experience, we should not be too quick to judge either the inferiority of their "truth" or the superiority of ours (or who are the "civilized" and who are the "barbarians").

Culture Quote of the Day

“The core difficulty in cross-cultural interaction is – simply stated – a failure to recognize relevant cultural differences.”

Stewart & Bennett, American Cultural Patterns

Overcoming this failure (in order to have better relationships across cultural difference, i.e., with people from a different cultural background) has two sides to it:

a.  we have to become more aware of our own culture, and
b. we have to become more aware of the culture of others.

The key steps are, realizing the need, and then figuring out how to become more culturally aware...

Culture Quote of the Day

“There is not one aspect of human life that is not touched and altered by culture. This means personality, how people express themselves (including shows of emotion), the way they think, how they move, how problems are solved, how their cities are planned and laid out, how transportation systems function and are organized, as well as how economic and government systems are put together and function.” 

Edward T. Hall

This is what we are talking about, when we talk about cultural adaptation - adapting to another people's entire way of life...

Beyond Ethnocentrism - Further thoughts on Accepting difference

In light of Keller's statement about religion and ethnocentrism, I have been thinking more about the nature of both ethnocentrism and whatever is beyond it (Bennett calls it ethnorelativism), especially from the perspective of religious faith.

I would like to reflect a bit more on Bennett's first ethnorelative stage, Acceptance, from my personal journey. As I wrote yesterday, 

"I grew up ethnocentrically Christian. The variety of 'Christian' that I was raised in, a Swedish-background Baptist Minnesotan church setting, was all I knew. To me, to be 'Christian' was to be Minnesotan Swedish Baptist (though I didn’t think this explicitly). Then in school I became vaguely aware of the existence of 'Lutherans' around me. I didn’t know anything about them (i.e., I was in Bennett’s Denial stage of ethnocentrism), except that they were different (e.g., the kids had a 'confirmation' class, which I didn’t). Then in 9^th grade 'Catholics' flooded into the public school. Again, I knew they were 'Christian,' but I didn’t know how they were different, and assumed that they were somehow not exactly 'right' as Christians (because we were). Then I went to an evangelical Swedish-Baptist background university, but which had some other Protestant evangelical churches and denominations represented. I remember being shocked by some of the ideas, beliefs, convictions, interpretations (of the Bible, of being Christian, etc.), practices, that I ran into. I remember thinking, 'those people aren’t good Christians,' and 'those people don’t know what they’re talking about,' and 'they don’t read the Bible correctly,' and thoughts like that. Ethnocentric thoughts. I was assuming that 'Christian' was universally what it was for me, and that anyone who was different, was wrong..."

My ethnocentrism – again, speaking here in relation to other Christians – was further challenged when I moved overseas, and began meeting Christians who were further beyond the range of my known boundaries of being Christian. These included Pentecostals and Anglicans, at first, and later Catholics and Orthodox (among others). Step by step, my boundaries, my ideas of the range of belief and understanding and interpretation and practice that could be “truly Christian,” were challenged.

Acceptance, for me, has meant respecting these other Christians as equally Christian. It has meant accepting that there are different ways of being Christian, including different interpretations and practices related specifically to Christian faith and church life (e.g., different ways of understanding and practicing baptism or the Lord’s Supper or church government or worship services or the working of the Holy Spirit), and different historical traditions, different ways of using language to talk about faith, etc. It has meant being curious to learn about the views and experiences and convictions, the uniqueness, of other Christians, rather than trying to defend my own way of being Christian.

The difference that growing into Acceptance has meant for me can be illustrated in my response to Brian McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy. At an earlier point in my journey, I am sure I would have reacted against this book, considering it to be “fuzzy,” blurring boundaries, soft on “truth.” I read it, however, after having worked through the issue of whether Lutherans and Pentecostals and Anglicans, and even Catholics and Orthodox, could be “truly Christian,” and when I read A Generous Orthodoxy, it was with an eagerness to expand my horizons further, to gain insight into some of the unique contributions of different “streams” (as Richard Foster calls them, in his book Streams of Living Water) of Christian faith in the world. A Generous Orthodoxy, in fact, represents an ethnorelative perspective on the Christian faith, an openness to understanding and learning to see the world from the perspective of the “different other” (in this case, the “other” being located within one’s extended family of faith).

Coming next… Adaptation

Is it ethnocentric to claim that claiming that one religion is right, is ethnocentric?

"Many say that it is ethnocentric to claim that our religion is superior to others. Yet isn't that very statement ethnocentric? Most non-Western cultures have no problem saying that their culture and religion is best. The idea that it is wrong to do so is deeply rooted in Western traditions of self-criticism and individualism. To charge others with the 'sin' of ethnocentrism is really a way of saying, 'Our culture's approach to other cultures is superior to yours.' We are then doing the very thing we forbid others to do."

"It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (name that all are equal) is right."

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

 I have various thoughts about this quote of Keller’s. On the one hand, I respect his reasoning, and I think his book is excellent.

On the other hand, I do not totally agree with this statement about ethnocentrism.

Yes, it is true – and good to think about – that it is impossible to escape our human situation. That is an irony of us trying to “step outside of” our situatedness, to develop a model like Bennett’s DMIS, discussing what it is to be rooted in one way of experiencing and seeing the world (what we call “ethnocentrism”), and what it is like to “grow” or “develop” to a point of knowing our own culture in the context of other cultures and worldviews, etc. (what Bennett calls “ethnorelativism”). Any model, as Keller indicates, is still rooted in a human tradition, a human vantage point, and is subject to critique.

But is Keller rightly using the term “ethnocentric,” and is he accurate in his critique?

Or put another way, might we distinguish between an ethnocentric and a non-ethnocentric way of believing that a religion (or a religious truth, or any truth) is right or true? (And is it the same to claim that your culture is best, as to claim that your religion is right?)

To be “ethnocentric,” at root, is to be bound by the perspective of your ethne, or people, in the “ethnic” / sociocultural sense of people; i.e., the people that one grows up among, lives in the context of, is socialized into. To be ethnocentric is to not realize that there are different cultures and worldviews, or to react against other cultures and worldviews, as we discover them, or to act as if they are basically some kind of subset of our own culture and worldview. It is obviously possible for someone who assumes and proclaims that their religion is true or absolute or best, to be doing so in an ethnocentric way – either ignoring others (Bennett’s Denial), denigrating them (Bennett’s Defense), or somehow seeing other peoples’ religion as subsumed under one’s own (Bennett’s Minimization). It is possible for Christians or Muslims or anyone to be “ethnocentric” (in one of Bennett’s phases) as a Muslim or a Christian in general (toward other religions), or, even toward those in their own broader religious community – e.g., to assume that a particular locally rooted expression of being Christian or Muslim is the only right or true version.

For example, I grew up ethnocentrically Christian. The variety of “Christian” that I was raised in, a Swedish-background Baptist Minnesotan church setting, was all I knew. To me, to be “Christian” was to be Minnesotan Swedish Baptist (though I didn’t think this explicitly). Then in school I became vaguely aware of the existence of “Lutherans” around me. I didn’t know anything about them (i.e., I was in Bennett’s Denial stage of ethnocentrism), except that they were different (e.g., the kids had a “confirmation” class, which I didn’t). Then in 9^th grade “Catholics” flooded into the public school. Again, I knew they were “Christian,” but I didn’t know how they were different, and assumed that they were somehow not exactly “right” as Christians (because we were). Then I went to an evangelical Swedish-Baptist background university, but which had some other Protestant evangelical churches and denominations represented. I remember being shocked by some of the ideas, beliefs, convictions, interpretations (of the Bible, of being Christian, etc.), practices, that I ran into. I remember thinking, “those people aren’t good Christians,” and “those people don’t know what they’re talking about,” and “they don’t read the Bible correctly,” and thoughts like that. Ethnocentric thoughts. I was assuming that “Christian” was universally what it was for me, and that anyone who was different, was wrong. This kind of ethnocentric thinking occurs within every group of people and every religious tradition. But is it inescapable? I would say no.

Setting aside the question of whether the truth claim of a given religion may in fact be right, responding to others from a standpoint of ethnocentrism has at least two problems for us as religious people / people of faith (I will proceed on an assumption that what I am saying may apply to any religious people). First, as I have argued previously, relating to people ethnocentrically is not loving, and thus falls short of what Jesus calls the second greatest commandment (after the command to love God; and I have read Jewish and Muslim authors that say that Judaism and Islam share these two great commandments with Christianity). In addition, living in and from ethnocentrism in our view of and relationship with others, is a crippled sort of living, in many senses – we do not truly know ourselves, we do not truly know others, and we do not have the deepest and most positive relationship with those who differ from us.

But perhaps the bigger question (if you will allow the above reasoning to stand) is whether it is possible for someone to believe in ultimate truth, e.g., the truth of a religious faith, and relate to others in a non-ethnocentric way?

One distinction that would apply at least to Christian faith and Islam, it seems, is that they are not tribal or ethnic religions, rooted in / bound to a particular people or place. Where is ethnocentrism, one might ask, if a mixed group of people from around the world, and who are fully aware of the existence and reality of various cultures and worldviews, and who might even have lived in different cultural settings and experienced the adaptation or integration that Bennett talks about as the final ethnorelative stages of experiencing cultural difference, make a universal truth claim about their religious faith (if by “their” faith we mean, not a locally rooted expression of Christianity or Islam, but what all or most Christians or Muslims might agree upon as the historical essence or heart of the faith)?

Does it make a difference, in regard to ethnocentrism, whether religious people are focused on external forms or on content / substance / essence? Again, it is easy enough to see the ethnocentrism in a particular group of Christians in a specific locale, who have little contact even with other Christians, arguing that a certain way of organizing their worship or doing church government, is the Biblical or Christian way (with the implication that all other Christians around the world and through history are wrong). But what if we “stripped down” the truth claims to content rather than form or structure? What if, looking across the breadth of ways of working out being Christian, through history and across the world, we emphasized what all might agree on, e.g., that it is about receiving life through Jesus and following him; that God is to be worshiped; that there are sacraments to be practiced (with the recognition that we might disagree on the number and on how they should be embodied in practice); etc. What if we practiced our best understanding of Christian faith, without judging other Christians as being wrong or less Christian than we are? Is it possible to imagine being committed Christians without being ethnocentric toward other Christians?

I would suggest that it is.

But what about between religions, then?

Bennett argues, in his model, that ethnorelativism entails adapting to another culture, learning to see the world from a different perspective, and to adapt behavior appropriate to that setting. It involves coming to see another cultural setting as viable, another way of being human. It does not involve assimilation, i.e., giving up one’s own culture for the other. And it does not involve losing one’s own sense of values, giving up value judgments. 

So is it not possible for a Muslim, living in a Christian cultural setting, to remain a fully convinced Muslim, convinced that s/he is on the right path, that the Qur’an is the final revelation from God and that Muhammad is the final Prophet, etc., while at the same time experiencing what it is to accept and adapt to/within the Christian cultural setting? Is it not possible for a Christian, living in a Muslim or some other (Jewish, Hindu, etc.) religious setting, to remain fully convinced that Jesus is the crucified and risen Lord and Savior, the giver of life, the one who reconciles people to God, etc., while at the same time experiencing what it is to accept and adapt to the culture of the other?

It would be ethnocentric for me as a Christian to look at Islam through a Christian framework (which is, I would suggest, where all Christians start out, in looking at Muslims or others). But what if I grow in ethnorelativism, in acceptance and adaptation and integration, entering into the world of Muslims, learning to understand their faith and practice (and broader culture) from within, to see the world from their vantage point, to see how it makes sense, how they interpret and generate behavior, etc.? But what if I still remain convinced that Jesus is the source of life, that he is the incarnate Word of God, that He gave his life to reconcile people to God, that He rose from the dead and will return again, etc.? What if I believe He is relevant to all people, offers life to all? What if I bear witness to that, to Him, to Muslims (without forcing anything on anyone, or condemning or judging anyone)?

Is it necessarily ethnocentric for someone of religious faith to live their faith, even to share it with others (in terms of “this is what I have found – perhaps you will find it relevant”), if done in a way that does not put down or judge the other, if there is respect for the other’s humanity and freedom and choice, if done with the realization that judgment belongs to God alone, and that we people always “see through a glass darkly,” may get one thing or another wrong, etc.?

I would suggest that if Bennett or any non-believing anthropologist claims that to have any sense of anything being ultimately true, is to be ethnocentric, in that case I would agree with Keller that that anthropologist (or whoever) is indeed being ethnocentric, imposing his/her secular social scientific worldview on the rest of us. And I would say, thank you, Dr. Bennett (or whoever), for the model and the concepts, but we are not limited by how you define ethnocentrism (or reality).

This reflection, though long, is just a beginning, just scratching the surface of a complex and I would guess controversial subject. If you have thoughts or questions or insights, feel free to post them. More will come from my side, as well.

And at the end of this long reflection, I’ll leave it to the reader to judge, am I agreeing or disagreeing with Keller’s statement about ethnocentrism?

Culture Quote of the Day - is it ethnocentric to talk about people being ethnocentric?

I interrupt this discussion of ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism to bring you a different perspective...

"Many say that it is ethnocentric to claim that our religion is superior to others. Yet isn't that very statement ethnocentric? Most non-Western cultures have no problem saying that their culture and religion is best. The idea that it is wrong to do so is deeply rooted in Western traditions of self-criticism and individualism. To charge others with the 'sin' of ethnocentrism is really a way of saying, 'Our culture's approach to other cultures is superior to yours.' We are then doing the very thing we forbid others to do."

"It is no more narrow to claim that one religion is right than to claim that one way to think about all religions (namely that all are equal) is right."

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God

I will be commenting on this quote, but at this point will put it out for your consideration. Is he right? Does he accurately portray "ethnocentrism"? Is talk of ethnocentrism, itself ethnocentric? Is there possibly a difference between an ethnocentric and a non-ethnocentric way for people of religious faith to relate to others (i.e., to believe that a religion or belief system is true, but not being ethnocentric about it)?

Beyond Ethnocentrism – Growing in Love of Neighbor Through Growth in Intercultural Sensitivity (1): Acceptance

“One of the ways people inevitably increase their awareness when learning about other cultures is to move from thinking ‘My way is the only way’ toward thinking ‘There are many valid ways’ of interpreting and participating in life.”

Brooks Peterson, Cultural Intelligence

In Bennett’s DMIS (Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity), growth toward a richer, fuller, more positive experience of cultural difference, i.e., growth in intercultural sensitivity, is marked by a transition from ethnocentrism (with stages of Denial – Defense – Minimization) to what he calls ethnorelativism (with stages of Acceptance – Adaptation – Integration).

This growth is characterized by a shift from the experience of one’s own beliefs and behaviors (culture, worldview) as “just the way things are,” to the experience of one’s own beliefs and behaviors as one organization of reality among many viable possibilities (i.e., one’s own culture is experienced in the context of other cultures) – as in the Brooks Peterson quote above. From being unknown, alien, absurd, threatening, insignificant, etc., the cultural difference of others becomes (or begins to become) known, real, comprehensible, respected, etc. This change involves a worldview shift – the world is seen and experienced differently, by a person who is becoming interculturally sensitive.

How do we respond to the "different other"?

The movement from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism is characterized by the development of cultural self-awareness, accompanied by a growing awareness of different others (i.e., of what makes others different, how they are different). (Note that in a different context, Stephen Covey points out that self-awareness is the key human gift, unlocking all other unique human potential, and that without self-awareness we cannot know others, because we treat them as if they were the same as us.)

Part of the growing awareness of others, and of cultural difference, involves beginning to see both the behavior and the values of people from other cultures, within a cultural context (i.e., as understandable within their cultural context).

“people begin to see alien behavior as indicative of profound cultural differences, not just as permutations of universal (and probably ethnocentric) laws”

“Alternative beliefs about both what exists in reality and the value which may be attached to those phenomena are respected as viable, at least as they are expressed in a cultural context.”

Milton Bennett, Towards Ethnorelativism (emphasis mine)

Movement out of ethnocentrism also involves questioning the universality of our experience, our models, our ways of doing things (be it in education, economics, politics, development, leadership, the way we do church life, or whatever realm). One way in which I experienced movement from the “minimization” stage of ethnocentrism, into a more ethnorelative approach, was in realizing that the apparent fact that Egyptians I knew did not seem to live according to Covey’s 7 Habits might not mean that Egyptians are not effective, but that the “7 Habits of Highly Effective Egyptians” are different than Covey’s 7 Habits (i.e., that Covey’s 7 Habits might not be universal). This seems obvious in hindsight, but the idea that a model which works for us is universally applicable, has a powerful force which is hard to escape.  Once we become more aware of the reality of cultural difference, anyone’s claim to have a “universal” model, approach, or solution, should cause us to see red flags and hear alarm bells.

Moving into Ethnorelativism: Acceptance

The first stage in the ethnorelative experience of cultural difference, in Bennett’s model, is Acceptance. Acceptance is characterized by curiosity about cultural difference, and a growing respect for difference. As one moves into Acceptance, s/he does not necessarily have a deep understanding of the difference which exists, but there is at least a realization that there is difference to be discovered, accompanied by a positive attitude toward exploring and discovering the difference.

Acceptance (in my words) involves…

• letting go of the idea that reality is simply the way we “know” it to be
• relating to people as they are, rather than as we would like them to be (or according to our image of them)
• wanting to know people (i.e., in the reality and fullness of who they are)
• not trying to change others, to be different or to be like us (which is the tendency of an ethnocentric experience of others)
• accepting others as being as fully human (and as fully complex) as we ourselves are
• being open to difference, and open to change (for we cannot grow in accepting others, without ourselves changing)
• being open to the fact that “what works for us” might not work for others, i.e., that “what works for us” might not be “universal”

To continue my theme of evaluating Bennett’s paradigm from the perspective of Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves, I ask, does a movement to the ethnorelative stage of Acceptance represent a
growth towards love of neighbor? In other words, if we are people who take the command to love our neighbor as ourselves seriously, should we be motivated to grow out of ethnocentrism, into Acceptance and beyond? Will we be better able to love our neighbor, if we accept the fact that they are different than we are, respect that difference, and try to understand it?

I’ll let you answer that one yourself…

Coming soon… Beyond Ethnocentrism (2): Adaptation

*For full treatment of Bennett’s model, see

Bennett, Milton J., “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity.” In Paige, R.M. (Ed). (1993) Education for the Intercultural Experience (2^nd ed., p. 21-71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

Bennett, Milton J., “Becoming Interculturally Competent.”  In Wurzel, Jaime S., ed., Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 62-77). Newton, MA: Intercultural Resource Corporation, 2004.