final paper sociology

University of Phoenix

Ethnocentrism and Immigrants within the United

StatesFinal Project Sociological Issue

Sociology 120

Professor Lee Daffin

Mechelle Davidson

1/9/2012

Ethnocentrism and Immigrants within the United StatesJanuary 9, 2012

Table of ContentsEthnocentrism..................................................................................................................3

Classification....................................................................................................................5

· Perceived Group Variability:........................................................................................................5

· Classic Ethnocentric stage:.........................................................................................................6

· Ethno-Relative Stage:..................................................................................................................6

· General In-group bias:..................................................................................................................6

· Simple In-group bias:....................................................................................................................7

· Mere In-group preference:...........................................................................................................7

· Americentrism:..............................................................................................................................7

· Anglo-centrism:.............................................................................................................................7

· German-centrism:.........................................................................................................................8

· Euro-centrism:...............................................................................................................................8

· European Union-centrism:...........................................................................................................8

Immigrants........................................................................................................................9

Key points:......................................................................................................................11

Congressional enactments targeted immigration policies to note:.........................11

Current Immigration Policy:..........................................................................................12

Ethnicity:..........................................................................................................................13

Ethnocentrism Future Perspective..............................................................................14

References........................................................................................................................15


Throughout the history of the United States, immigration has been a significant

influence in the foundation constructing the country’s extensive diversity and ideology.

As each new wave of immigrants have come ashore, onto American soil to find the

ever-promised American dream an increased ethnocentrism becomes fostered within

society. From the time of colonization until 2000, there were 50 million documented

cases of immigrations (CIA, 2011). Between the years of 2003 and 2008, more than six

million more persons immigrated permanently and legally into the United States of

America, making the current ethnic groups accounting for over 20.04 percent of the total

population (CIA, 2011).

With the world today in the mist of the most rapid population growth in history, it

becomes increasingly important for the comprehension of how ethnocentrism opinions

shape differently within micro-cultures of larger societies, which is critical in promoting

cultural diversity and heritages. Because there is a magnitude of different perceptions

on the meaning behind ethnocentrism, and the implications in immigration,

globalization, ethnic diversification and multiculturalism this paper will attempt analysis

of the technical definition while looking to these concepts importance for immigrant

society, cultural heritages, and the cultural diversity of American society.

Ethnocentrism According to William Sumner (1906), Ethnocentrism is the technical view of

things in which ones own group is the center of everything, and all others scaled and

rated with reference to it. Berry and Kalin (1995) expresses that the ethnocentrism

concept initiates the prospect of general antipathy toward all other out-groups. Raden


(2003) explains ethnocentrism as the evaluation of one group as favorable while

another group negatively.

Levine and Campbell (1961) define ethnocentrism as an attitude or outlook

toward ones cultural background applies different values to other cultural contexts, part

psychological and part cultural as interpretations of aggression or hostility toward those

differences; While Dong explains ethnocentrism as each persons’ ’ “from-of-reference”

in determining their constructed reality and bias toward one group to another.

Ethnocentrism often connected to sociological theory of cultural relativism,

stating that culture relativists assert that concepts began socially constructed and widely

vary cross-culturally. Each view, each analysis depicted currently is merely one small

proportional part of the fundamental notions of significance society places ethnocentric

thinking. These ethnocentric concepts teach prejudice that prevents society from

understanding and appreciating another’s’ culture. As immigration continues most

persistent and ethnic lines are blurred, societies attempt to coexist within each other’s

different cultures colored by the degree of ethnocentrism learned in each (Dong, Day, &

Collaco, 1995).

It is normal human behavior to have positive views toward one’s own cultural

significance while harboring condescending opinions regarding another alien culture.

Any culture distinguished as different, alien, believed inferior, less sensible, unnatural,

and immoral, as and of less value than that, which one knows from his or her own

culture. These ideologies are common happenings within all of society, to judge

another culture in the same terms, values, and customs in direct comparison to those

familiar, to one’s own culture, ethnocentrism at its simplistic.


While ethnocentrism within culture, language, behavior, and customs can be a

basis for ethnic distinctions and sub-divisions, the problem of maintaining and keeping

cultural identity uniqueness intensifies. Despite the rapidly growing integration emerging

cross-culturally, cultural ideology and identity is a central concern for ethnic cultures

around the world, as more in-distinction between ethnic lines becomes obscure within

society as coexisting cultures increases substantially (Chun-yan, 2008, p. 78).

Ethnocentrism nevertheless is perhaps both necessary and important for each

society. As Vittorio Lanternari explains, “Ethnocentrism fosters in-group solidarity,

conformity, cooperation, loyalty, and effectiveness in society” (Lanternari, 1980).

Classification Ethnocentrism concepts remain socially constructed to include learned essential

positions on truth, morality, correctness, or what knowledge of one’s reality constitutes

incorporation. There is much speculation over the characteristics and variances

concerning classification of ethnocentrism stages and the implications for understanding

these for further research.

· Perceived Group Variability:

Researchers refer to as a gateway to understanding the factors of in/out group

affects. Perceived group variability is researching how variability is measured and the

contributing factors to the formation help to improve all aspects of the group effects.

Consider the following example: A perceiver or witness catch sight of behavior by a

new example and encodes that behavior to later recall. An alternative belief to this

example is that the said perceiver stores the new example of the behavior with a

judgment, which the perceiver formulated at the time the new examples established


information. When this new examples information is envision, the perceiver brings up

first the group level generalizations of variability and stereotypical views, and then the

specific information on the example. This alternative example on perceived group

variability although controversial, is essentially important in the understanding of

variability group research (Campbell & Levine, 1961).

· Classic Ethnocentric stage:

This gives favorable evaluation of one’s group with negative evaluation of other

groups, consisting of special and distinctive type of in-group bias. This stage consists of

individuals avoiding cultural differences with denial, defense, and minimization, through

the denial of existence, raising a defense against the perceived differences and

minimizing the importance of it according to intercultural standards (Raden, 2003).

· Ethno-Relative Stage:

This stage consists of individuals with intercultural sensitivity, allowing

transformation of themselves in acceptance, adaption and importance. Where ethno-

relative individuals experience the culture in context of other cultures, construed as

seeking cultural differences through whole concepts into definition of identity (Dong,

Day, & Collaco, 1995). This suggesting that as an individual’s’ cultural experiences

difference increases, so shall competence in intercultural situations will increases.

· General In-group bias:

Just as the classic version is a special and distinctive type of bias within own

group, general group bias is the less restrictive bias of simply rating one’s own group

higher than those given other out-groups. Sociologists within their research do generally

not make the distinction between the two evaluations. Experimental social


psychologists in social categorization-social identity theory traditions subsequently have

ignored these distinctions as well.

· Simple In-group bias:

This term designates general in-group bias as a complement to the classic

ethnocentrism bias. Giving the in-group favorable evaluation and out group unfavorable,

while not pairing favorable in-group evaluations with the unfavorable evaluations of the

out-group, providing the in-group less unfavorable or neutral when not in agreement.

· Mere In-group preference:

This emphases positivity toward the in-group, the in-group preference approach

dispenses with evaluations of the in-group and out-group on the same traits: instead,

and becomes a matter of establishing associations between favorable rating and

measures of prejudice and discrimination.

· Americentrism:

This term used for a cultural and personal disposition in favor of the United

States, culturally, either politically, or ideologically. The Americentrisic point of view is

normal for Americans to possess. This term however points to issues predominance of

American viewpoint exists to the detriment of most neutral worldviews (Chun-yan,

2008).

· Anglo-centrism:

This form of ethnocentrism is specific to those individuals who self-identify as

English, irrespective of genetic makeup, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation. These

expressions of ethnocentrism by the English could more accurately describe as

Eurocentric.


· German-centrism:

Is the form of ethnocentrism specific to those who self-identify as German,

irrespective of genetic make-up, religion, or sexual orientation. This expression also

could accurately describe Eurocentricism.

· Euro-centrism:

This is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing emphasis on European as

well as Western theories and ideas at the expense of other cultures. These

assumptions are fundamentally concepts differentiating from those of other cultures and

civilizations, while somehow contradictorily also assumes equally important that

Western concepts are universal. Westerners’ centric thinking composed as a universal

cultural currency broadly into elements of other cultures quite easily. A number of

these Western concepts, always seeming in flux, usually illustrate individualism, human

rights, secular authority and law, and the separation of religion and state (Chun-yan,

2008).

· European Union-centrism:

Most possibly grew from universality of humanism and principles derived from

Judeo-Christian ethical systems and values that recognize humanity regardless of its

origins (Raden, 2003). Within Britain, this illustrates to refer pro-European Union views,

often meant as derogatory in the use.

These are all conceptual ideas on differences foreseen because of immigration,

globalization, ethnic diversification, and multiculturalism envisage characteristic of the

United States today (Campbell & Levine, 1961). While multicultural ideology suggests

an evaluation on the majority, groups established picture, and the degree in which they


possess positive attitudes toward immigrants and cultural diversity. Those with positive

attitudes toward immigrants and immigration ensure society appreciates diversity and

cultural maintenance of ethnic groups, the perception perceived and viewed, ensuring

continued multicultural sensitivity within all intra-cultural communication occurs (Haubert

& Fussell, 2006).

The Cultural relativity approach is an important and advantageous implement in

the interacting between cultures or inter-culturally within multiple cultures of any society.

These ethnocentric thinking and values are like that of the backbone of cultures, it

separates culture from culture, provides a reference for each culture to look at while

providing stability within ones’ own. While these values can bring both good and bad in

the manifestation of attitudes toward superiority or hostility for others, and giving way to

discrimination and sometimes violence, these values are, cultural ideas depict or

considered important specifically unilaterally to cultures (Raden, 2003).

ImmigrantsThese cultural ideas considered important specific to ones’ ethnicity represent

the following analogy, there is a picture of an iceberg floating, above the water there is

but 10 percent visible, the other 90 percent is underwater and unseen. This picture

illustrates the “hidden value law” concept of cultural values, because 90% of the “law” is

underwater, it is impossible to learn everything about every law, but helps to learn

some. With thousand upon tens of thousands unwritten cultural laws, and these

changing from culture to culture over time, through adoption, and integration, hinders

inter-cultural knowledge for newly immigrated individuals (Chun-yan, 2008).


Immigration described as the most persistent and pervasive influences

occurring in the United States, (Dong, Day, & Collaco, 1995) representing the more

than 50 million people to have immigrated into the United States from the time of

separation from England. With many factors affecting immigration in the United States,

one primary issue is that of war, both fought inside and outside of the country, and the

enacted laws specific to immigration because of them.

In 1790, the first census of the United States compiled the population for the

country, before this occurrence more than 875,000 people from all areas of Africa,

Europe, and Central America migrated into the United States. In the late 1500s Florida,

the established residency consisted of Spanish decent. During this same period, the

English settled New England and Virginia; the Dutch occupying New York and New

Jersey; The Swedish in Delaware. This first census reported over 3.9 million people

within the country, excluding Native Americans.

The largest groups of nationalities recorded were those of English, followed by

Africans than Germans, Scotts, and the Irish. These groups making the only sizeable

national demographics recorded and reported in the census (Hopper, 2011).

Within this same year, Congress passes the first bill concerning nationalization of

foreign persons in the new country. This new bill, stating only “any alien, being a free

white person, may be admitted to become a United States citizen, after a two year

residency” (Hopper, 2011, p. 5) grew exponentially in following years.

Congress than continued to create and enact laws every couple of years

concerning immigration, making naturalization increasingly more difficult and

complicated for newly arriving aliens. In 1802, a new naturalization act changed these


factors in favor of immigrants, by significantly lowering the residency requirements for

citizenship from the 14 years it had grown to the newly designated five years. This

significantly affecting both immigration and naturalization, after the American Civil War,

the 13TH Amendment was passed. This making slavery illegal, not just for those

Africans and Caribbean Islanders, but for those Europeans that would barter servitude

in exchange for their passage and land at the end of agreed service, as well Asian

immigrants forcibly brought to work within California. The following decades would

experience a magnitude of changes and enactments created regarding immigration,

naturalization and the treatment of trans-Atlantic passengers (Haubert & Fussell, 2006).

In 1882, the first ever act-prohibiting undesirables’ from immigrating or entering

the country Congress endorse. The “Chinese Exclusion Act” was the first ever racially

motivated enactment within the United States. With this ratify ordered the suspension

of Chinese workers immigrating into the country, refused nationalization, and only

selectively allowed temporary passes for educational purposes for those enlightened

few individuals of economic means.

Next Congress attempts the first in a series of labor laws, restricting the import of

foreigners through contractual bonds of servitude. With each passing year, subsequent

enactments followed, increasing the expense, difficulty, and requirements for

immigration into America.

Key points:

Congressional enactments targeted immigration policies to note:

· 1891: Formal organization of Federal government procedures on immigration


· 1910: Mann Act-Illegalization of interstate trafficking of women for “immoral

purposes”

· 1917: Immigration Act-limiting immigrants entry based on literacy, mental health,

and ethnicity

· 1921: 1ST Quota on Immigration by the Federal government for certain areas1

· 1965: President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Hart-Cellar Act, removing

the quota system and adapting the current immigration policy in the United

States.

· 1986: Immigration Reform Act- discouraged illegal immigration and Illegal hiring

of aliens2

· 1948: The Displaced Persons’ Act gave hundreds of thousand immigrants refuge

in the United States3

· 1965: Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments created groundbreaking

volumes of immigrants’ entrance into the United States, proof to the effectiveness

of this policy.

Current Immigration Policy:· Five year Residency after permanent alien status is granted

· Three months residency within district or state of requested citizenship

· Of good moral character

1 Allowing the immigration of some nationalities based on the percentage of similar nationalities already present in the country based on census reports from the previous year.

2 This same act provided more than 3,000,000 illegal aliens with amnesty and citizenship into the United States.

3 This gave 38,000 Hungarians fleeing a failed attempt to overthrow the Soviet Union refuge, creating the first mass nationalization to occur in the United States for any one nationality.


· Knowledge of Civics (History & Government)

· Understanding of the English Language (Read, Write, Basic Speech)

· An Attachment to the United States Constitution (Give an Oath)

i

Ethnicity: Throughout American History, the United States is representative of a country

built on the foundation of Immigrants and the enrichment of the diversity they bring.

As of December 2011, the total population of the United States reported as 312

million people, with an ethnic grouping consisting of:

79.96% percent white (of non-Hispanic decent),

12.85% percent black (of African American decent),

4.43% percent Asian,

0.97% percent Armenian and Alaska Native,

0.18% percent Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and

1.61% containing two or more race classifications (CIA, 2011).

15.1% percent of the total United States population is Hispanic4

4 Note that the U.S. Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin to include those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto

Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central and South American origin living in the United States who may be of any race or ethnic group.


Ethnocentrism Future PerspectiveLooking from an objective perspective, ethnocentrism can appear both positive

and negative for a society’s values. In a growing world of heavily armed and even

higher populated nations, the benefits might seem unclear while the negative potential

crystal clear to any observer. All of Society is born into a set human culture this that

shapes self-awareness and understanding of others (Haubert & Fussell, 2006). While

reflecting cultural teaching, behavior, and relations with other cultures, to racism, and

acceptance or inferiority associated with any new culture are all learned social belief

value systems. With increased diversity, knowledge, and tolerance for culture alien to

one’s own, ethnocentrism will cease encompassing of negative indication toward other

cultures.

While Immigration and Migration of immigrants not likely to dwindle or terminate,

but increase substantially for the United States, it is imperative that all Americans exhibit

diversified tolerance and cultural relativity. As Ethnocentrism appears important often

during the formation and continued existence of relatively stable social collectives and

informal groupings of societies, a more precise understanding gives insight to the social

collective of others. With this understanding, these classifications for the future

immigrants, in terms of their continued plights of immigration or nationalization within

the United States, will continue as it started thru immigration and adoption to increase

multiculturalism of a countries growing diversification to a societies increased cultural

prosperity. This global favorability providing all citizens with a wealth of understanding

and communal pride for all variety of cultural distinction and in-distinction as society

globalize.


ReferencesCampbell, D. T., & Levine, R. A. (1961). A Proposal for Cooperative Cross

Cultural Research on Ethnocentrism. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 82-109.

Chun-yan, N. (2008). Analysis of Ethnocentrism. US-China Foreign Language ,

78-83.

CIA. (2011, July). The World Fact book. Retrieved January 11, 2012, from CIA

Fact book Index: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Dong, Q., Day, K. D., & Collaco, C. M. (1995). Overcoming Ethnocentrism

through Developing Intercultural Communication Sensitivity and Multiculturalism.

Human Communication publication of the Pacific and Asian Communication

Association, 27-38.

Haubert, J., & Fussell, E. (2006). Explaining Pro Immigrant Sentiment in the

United States: Social Class, Cosmopolitanism, and Perceptions of Immigrants.

International Migration Review, 489-508.


Hopper, P. (2011). Ethnocentrism and Stereotyping as it concerns immigration in

the United States. University Of South Alabama.

Kam, C. D., & Kinder, D. R. (2007). Terror and Ethnocentrism: Foundations of

American Support for the War on Terrorism. Journal of Politics, 320-338.

Lanternari, V. (1980). Ethnocentrism and Ideology. Ethnic and Racial Studies,

Rome University, 52-66.

Population Reference Bureau. (2009). Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved

01 2012, from Population Reference Bureau: http://www.prb.org

Pratto, F., & Glasford, D. E. (2008). Ethnocentrism and the Value of Human Life.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1411-1428.

Raden, D. (2003). In Group Bias, Classic Ethnocentrism, and Non-Ethnocentrism

Among American Whites. Political Psychology, 803-831.

Schiele, J. H., & Hopps, J. G. (2009). Racial Minorities Then and Now: The

Continuing Significance of Race. Social Work, 195-200.

United States. (2011). United States Census Bureau. Retrieved Jan 2012, from

United States Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov

i Immigration History information compiled through U.S. Census Bureau (United States, 2011), World Population Information (Population Reference Bureau, 2009), The World Fact book (CIA, 2011), and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services website (USCIS, 2009).

final paper sociology

Education