In the last post we looked at Milton Bennett's analysis of ethnocentrism. Today we take up the flip side of the coin: ethnorelativism.

Here again is Bennett's model:

Continuing our rightward trajectory along the path in the diagram, we now cross the big dividing line between ethnocentrism and ethnorelativism. The key shift is from threat to non-threat: in the ethnocentric states we relate to difference as a threat to our own cherished ways of being and doing, and the actions we take in response are protective and defensive in nature — and possibly counter-threatening. In the ethnorelative stages the focus shifts to adding, as we realize that new categories can supplement, instead of threaten, our existing categories. Curiosity and thirst for learning take over, and make the intercultural experience something we are more likely to enjoy. Bennett writes:

The contrast in the ways of experiencing difference is illustrated in the reports of two study-abroad students who had just returned from a homestay in France. One student stated, “My homestay mother was always yelling at me in French, which I didn’t understand well. I felt like I was always doing something wrong. It was a bad situation, and I was happy when I got changed to a different home where the mother spoke some English.” The second student reported a similar situation but a different reaction: “My homestay mother would burst into my room in the morning, throw open the window, and yell things in French I didn’t understand. It was just wonderful — so French!”[1]

The first ethnorelative stage is Acceptance. In this stage we are willing to accept another mindset as potentially as valid as our own. And, crucially, we respect other mindsets, including both values and associated behaviors. We also begin to understand culture as a process, rather than as a “thing” that we “have.” If culture is a thing that we have, then it is static, and there is little hope for transforming our own mindset. If culture is a process — something that we all engage in — then we can hope to continue learning and developing.As we move from Acceptance into the next stage, Adaptation, the focus shifts to developing the concrete skills that allow us to genuinely shift from our own default cultural point of reference to a point of reference based in another culture. Here Bennett distinguishes between sympathy and empathy. Sympathy is mostly ethnocentric: we might try to imagine how we would handle a situation if we were, say, French, but we imagine doing so from our American perspective. Empathy, in contrast, involves a genuine attempt to shift perspective. Bennett offers this example:

Recently I observed this contrast illustrated by two American reactions to an Arab student’s weekend flight to London. The sympathetic (and ethnocentric) comment was, “Boy, it must be great to have so much money you could just do anything you wanted.” The empathic response was, “Maybe airplanes are like modern camels — conveyances you use to fulfill obligations to friends across some ocean-desert.” The sympathetic response projected an individualistic American worldview into the perceived situation, while the empathic response assumed that the Arab’s experience of an airplane trip was probably different than an American’s would be. It is not so important that the empathic statement was correct; what is important is that it acknowledged and respected possible cultural difference.[2]

In Adaptation, the additive nature of ethnorelativism really kicks in: we see that we can approach the world through frameworks other than our own default framework, without our default framework being threatened. We have more arrows in our quiver, more tools in our toolbox. We can view life through many different lenses, and engage with the world through many different means. All the while, though, our default framework remains primary.In the final stage, Integration, we cease to have a single primary cultural framework as a reference point for thought and action. Instead, we are able to draw equally on whatever frameworks we have become fluent in through our experiences. “Marginality” is a key marker of people in this stage: “They are outside all cultural frames of reference by virtue of their ability to consciously raise any assumption to a metalevel (level of self-reference). In other words, there is no natural cultural identity for a marginal person.”[3] Few of us may want to venture this far into ethnorelativity. For most purposes, Bennett emphasizes, Adaptation will serve our purposes — especially because the kind of marginality inherent in Integration can be, subjectively, a source of much stress and anxiety.In his analysis, Bennett is clear that he doesn’t intend his model to describe the static state of any single human being. Each of us at any given moment can find ourselves in any of the stages. What we want, and what we work for, is a steady, stubborn push toward the right side of the diagram — maybe stopping at Adaptation and not venturing too far into Integration.What does all this ultimately mean for us? The value I see in Bennett’s model is threefold. First, by framing intercultural sensitivity as developmental, he shows us that, realistically, human beings must go through certain stages in our quest for understanding. Reading a travel guide won’t catapult us into Adaptation.Second, Bennett’s model makes it clear that this kind of growth doesn’t just happen. Each of us has to be an active, seeking agent. We have to experience the discomforts and put in the hard work in order for progress to happen.And finally, by focusing on the additive nature of intercultural sensitivity, Bennett gives us a way out of zero-sum ways of thinking about culture. The more cultures I am fluent in, the more tools I have for solving problems. It’s simply not true that the more able I am to relate to China, the less able I am to relate to the United States.

[1]

Milton Bennett, 1993, Towards Ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity.

Education for the Intercultural Experience

, edited by M. Paige. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, pp. 21-71. Citation from p. 47.

[2]

Bennett, 1993, p. 53.

[3]

Bennett, 1993, p. 63.