Ethnocentric Intolerance

I recently overheard a cafeteria discussion in which a student was describing ethnic intolerance as being entirely without logical or rational bases. Although I was glad to know this person felt strongly about it, I could not help thinking that something was wrong with the statement.

Take the case of Chris, a white, middle-class child of average natural endowment, reared in the bosom of a "morally strict" American family. Whenever Chris puts an elbow on the dinner table or fails to appropriately use the napkin, disapproving looks, gestures and words are given in response.

Thus Chris learns at an early age that certain actions are “good” and certain others “bad”. Because the disapproval is aimed at Chris, the child also learns that people are either good or bad according to their actions.

Sometimes Chris uses a wrong word or admits to not knowing something, and in reply receives sneers and scorn from peers. Soon another lesson is learned: people are either dumb or smart according to whether or not they know certain facts and use appropriately certain words.

Everyone seems to be in agreement as to what constitutes good, bad, dumb or smart people, so Chris naturally accepts these assumptions as true without questioning them. Chris has now been properly programmed to be ethnocentric.

Then one day Chris meets someone who never heard of Darth Vader and who says “college” for high school and “football” for soccer. Chris already knows beyond question that people who do not know this fact and who use inappropriately these words are dumb. So the only logical conclusion is that this poor child must be stupid, which Chris promptly informs him of.

But now Chris notices that this dumb child eats with both arms on the table and wipes grimy hands on clean clothes. Chris does not need reminding that people who do these things are bad, and logically concludes that this child is both stupid and bad.

As time goes by, Chris meets more and more people who not only speak and act similarly, but who also look a lot like that that dumb, bad child. Again the lesson of experience is that “all people who look like thus and so are stupid and bad.” Chris has now been programmed to be intolerant.

So it is clear that ethnocentric intolerance is actually very logical in its origins. But is it, by the same token, fully rational? I don’t think so. In order for these logical conclusions to be based on reason, Chris would first have to question the very assumptions or “truths” of the programming received at an early age.

Are certain actions truly bad, or just contrary to cultural norms? If they are bad, does this mean that the person who performs them is also bad, or just not well trained, or even just making a inadvertent mistake? Are certain linguistic patterns signs of stupidity, or merely different ways of speaking, or even the result of attempts at translating from another language?

But how can Chris challenge or even identify assumptions which in themselves constitute the only frame of reference to which they can be compared? Is Chris expected to pull herself up by her proverbial bootstraps? If ethnocentric intolerance is only logical, what does Chris need in order to truly reason appropriately? This is where ideals and their resulting values com in.

Ideals are lures that we place in front of ourselves to attract us in certain directions. If our "Ideal Self" is tolerant, kind, compassionate, and forgiving, and we find ourselves to be intolerant, unkind, self–centered, and vindictive, we now have a frame of reference by which to question and examine our assumptions.

We can now ask ourselves whether the logical conclusions resulting from those unchallenged “truths” contribute to or detract from our becoming more like our Ideal Self, and we can begin a process of inner change.

The effort we put into this change reflects the strength of our values. Values differ from ideals in that they do not represent where we want to go, but rather how important it is to us, which in turn determines what we are willing to do in order to get there.

Am I ready to give up the familiar comfort of inherited beliefs in order to become more just? Is honesty so essential to me that I would rather go hungry than steal? Where do I draw the line between what is my legal “right” and what is truly fair? Am I only loving to those who treat me with deference? Do I go out of my way to get to know people whose race, culture, social class, ideology or nationality differs from my own?

Our responses to these and similar questions reflect our true values and determine how quickly we will get closer to our Ideal Self. Only when we have answered truthfully can we claim to be truly rational human beings, and not just following the logic of our childhood programming.

(December, 1984)