1. I would support ethnocentrism in this case even when bull fighting is considered an important cultural practise. The reason for this is that humanity demands to shun those practices that lead to cruelty towards others. We should be kind and empathetic to other living beings. It is better to see this issue through the ethnocentric point of view as this point of view leads to betterment of the subject (bull). By measuring the pros and cons of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism, I found that in this case the former provides more benefits.
2. In this case I would support cultural relativism. Since the course has been specifically designed for the faculty of King Abdulaziz University of Saudi Arabia, it is better to operate it in a manner, which is suitable to them. Since they have not enrolled in the Virginia Tech University as permanent students, and since only the Saudi Arabian students are attending this course, it is better that the course is tailor made to their requirements.
3. I would support ethnocentrism in favor of the passing of the state bill. This is because though eating dog meat is acceptable in one’s country, one should not adopt the same practice in a foreign land. One should always act according to the norms of the country one is staying in.
4. I would support ethnocentrism in this case as though it is good to appreciate the practises of other cultures; it is always advisable to enforce the norms of conduct that is suitable to everyone. Though it is normal for the Sikh boy to wear ‘kirpan’, it is very absurd for other pupils of his school. This ceremonial sword, which is viewed by the rest of school as a weapon, might also instigate violence in the school. So for the best interests of others and to propagatee the idea of uniformity in rules and equal treatment to all, this Sikh boy should not have been allowed to carry his ceremonial sword to school. In an academic institution everyone should dress equally. Then only can it be possible to enforce discipline.
5. I would support ethnocentrism in this case as no matter what the reason be it is foolish to let the members of our global village act in a cruel manner. Selecting sex of one’s choice and indulging in female infanticide is an inhuman thing to do. Killing the innocent infants when they are still in their mothers’ womb on the basis of their sex is like committing murder. Murder is a crime and hence engaging in this crime or letting others to indulge in it should never be allowed even if it is acceptable in the other person’s culture. When it is the case of betterment of the society, it is always better to see the larger picture rather than getting trapped in cultural divisions.
6.I would support ethnocentrism in this case too as no matter what the reason is, killing oneself and one’s children is not a wise thing to do. If instead of the mother, one of the children had survived then it would have been impossible for him to live with an emotional scar whose cause would have been no one else but his mother. The feeling that one’s mother attempted to kill him is more painful than adultery of one’s father.
7. After examining my answers, I observed that in all the cases except one, I have supported ethnocentrism. Though I respect other cultures as much as I respect my own culture, in this exercise ethnocentrism won in the relativist vs. an ethnocentric perspective because these cases were examples of some of the practises that do not impress a logical and positive mind. I am sure even the people belonging to the cultures discussed above who consider themselves a part of a global village rather than a part of a small culture would have thought the same way. Instead of seeing the cases as my culture vs. others’ culture, I looked upon them from the perspective of a global citizen.
Shiraev, E., Levy, D. (3 Ed.). (2007). Cross-Cultural Psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Goldstein, S. (2 Ed.). (2008). Cross-Cultural Explorations, Activities in Culture and
Psychology. MA: Allyn & Bacon