Modern conceptual approaches to the definition of ethnocentrism in the two-dimensional field of interethnic separation and integration


The author studied and classified the main theoretical approaches to defining the concept of ethnocentrism, identified the place of ethnocentrism among the processes of ethnic demarcation and unification, clarified the correlation of increasing politicization of ethnicities, determined the causes and functions of ethnocentrism, in the dimension of the socio-psychological phenomenon. In the process of research, the definition of the ethnocentric doctrine of W. Sumner is formulated. An attempt is made to positively analyse the correlation of Sumner’s newly introduced concepts of “we-group” and “they-group”. The paper defined it as a result of research by scientists of the so-called “primitive societies”. The study examined many available ethnocentric concepts of modern Western political scientists and sociologists, identified their perception of the causal and functional burden on this phenomenon as a property of individuals, social groups, and communities (as carriers of ethnic identity) to perceive and evaluate life phenomena through the prism of traditions and values of their ethnic community, which acts as a specific general standard or optimum. The socio-empirical data collected, accumulated, and systematized during research are of great value as it creates limited ethnocultural contacts and leads to growing hostility in the ethnopolitical field. It is emphasized that the sources and causes of ethnocentrism are simple, hidden in the uncritical perception of information and negative attitudes towards their own and other ethnic groups. It is noted that the future without ethnocentrism should be associated with a balanced state policy in deepening and expanding interethnic contacts. The anti-ethnocentric policy also involves the comprehensive development of interethnic communicative culture, overcoming ethnic stereotypes (negative and positive attitudes of ethnic identification).

  1. Artanovskyi, S. (1979). The problem of ethnocentrism, ethical identity of cultures and interethnic relations in modern foreign ethnography and sociology. Current issues of ethnography and modern foreign science. Kyiv [in Ukrainian]

  2. Kuras, I. (1999). Ethnopolitics: history and modernity. Kyiv: Kuras Institute of Political and Ethnic Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine [in Ukrainian]

  3. Lozko, G. (2001). Ethnology of Ukraine. Kyiv: ArtEK [in Ukrainian]

  4. Yevtukh, V. (Ed.). (1996). Ethnic directory. Part 2. Kyiv: Feniks [in Ukrainian]

  5. Small encyclopedia of ethno-state studies. (1996). Kyiv: Heneza, Dovira [in Ukrainian]

  6. Sumner, W. (1959). Folkways. New York.

  7. Rymarenko, Yu. (2007). Fundamentals of ethno-state studies. Kyiv: Lybid [in Ukrainian]

  8. Kresina, I. (2003). Heuristic possibilities of biogeodeterminism. Political Management, 3, 27-35 [in Ukrainian]

  9. Averkieva, Yu.P. (1963). On some ethnopsychological research in the United States. In A.V. Yefimov, Yu.P. Averkieva (Eds.), Modern American ethnography (pp. 64-96). Kyiv [in Russian]

  10. Sumner, W., Keller, A. (1942). The science of society. New York.

  11. Yevtukh, V., Troshchynskyi, V., Galushko, K. (2003). Ethnosociology: terms and concepts. Kyiv: Feniks [in Ukrainian]

Full text