As a cultural anthropology instructor, I am constantly looking for ways to show the relevance of anthropological concepts and perspectives by applying them to real world events. This week, I lectured on ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. The Revolution in Egypt, and the related upheavals throughout the Arab world, provide an excellent opportunity to show the transformative potential of these concepts.
As a cultural anthropology instructor, I am constantly looking for ways to show the relevance of anthropological concepts and perspectives by applying them to real world events. This week, I lectured on ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. The Revolution in Egypt, and the related upheavals throughout the Arab world, provide an excellent opportunity to show the transformative potential of these concepts.
Ethnocentrism is a barrier to the cultural understanding that anthropologists seek because it judges difference according to our own, supposedly universal, standards. It imposes on cultural difference preconceived notions of right and wrong. Relativism, on the other hand, involves combating our fear of difference and the ethnocentric urge to judge in order to understand cultural difference on its own terms. This is not to say that we should never attempt to discern right from wrong; but it does mean that understanding and judgment are fundamentally different, and that anthropologists value understanding over judgment. With enough understanding, judgment may no longer seem necessary, and cannot proceed without the recognition of the fundamental humanness of the acts and actors being judged.
Many Egyptians reached a breaking point in what they considered to be tolerable, and experienced a transformation in what they believed to be possible. They gained the strength to confront their government, which they see as repressive and immoral, and to demand its dissolution. This revolution was inspired by a revolution in Tunisia, and is now inspiring others throughout the region. It is too soon to say what will happen. We are at an important crossroads.
We have already seen two major types of responses in the US media, which cut across the republican and democratic divide, and which map fairly closely into relativist and ethnocentric stances. The relativist response includes those who want to understand events in Egypt on the terms of the protesters and Egyptians who support them. Many in this group have expressed excitement about the emergence of a pro-democracy movement in a country long ruled by brutal dictators. They focus on this movement as a unique experiment in democracy that has united many different segments of society—Muslim and Christian; young and old; working class, middle class and poor; women and men. The relativists focus on how this movement is peaceful, and that it is not led by Radical Islamists. They see these revolutions as holding the potential to fundamentally change the political dynamic within these countries, and to transform the antagonistic dynamic between the US and the Middle East. These features are surprising, and difficult to recognize, given that they do not fit our preconceived notions about Arab societies. The relativists urge us to support these revolutions, and embrace the possibility of democracy throughout the Middle East.
The second type of reaction has been ethnocentric and reactive. It wants, and wants us, to judge and interpret the events in Egypt according to our own standards and measurements, and own preconceived notions about the region. These groups see democracy and revolution in Egypt as threats. They see it as risking empowering radical Islamic organizations with the potential to threaten US and Israeli security and interests. They see Islamic law as a threat to women and religious minorities. They warn that the Islamic democracy is not real democracy. In true ethnocentric fashion, we think our own version of democracy is the best, and the only real, safe and acceptable form. Certain extremists claim these events form part of a leftist-Islamist conspiracy to destroy America.
The Egyptian protestors insist that they are peaceful, that they are not led by the Islamists, that women are fighting for the movement, that they respect all religions, and that all they want is democracy. They want us to let go of our old frames and fears. At this point, by the best estimates, nearly 300 protestors have died in their struggle to broadcast this call for freedom to all corners of the earth. But relativism is hard, and takes work. We must counteract fear and prejudice in order for understanding to prevail. It also has to fight against powerful voices that are working tirelessly to shape the way that we respond to these events, to maintain the relationships to the region that we have in place. These voices speak loudly, and have already begun to drown out the relativist voice.
We may want to believe that we can balance understanding with judgment, that we can keep a focus on what these revolutions mean to the people of the Middle East and also interpret them according to our preconceived notions about a region that we have for decades learned to fear and mistrust. But in the end, the way that the US government responds will be based in either fear or understanding. Without question, it is fear that informs the US early attempts to replace Mubarak with his hand picked successor, Suleiman, his former intelligence chief and notorious torturer. We want to control and manage those events in order to protect our "own interests", however those are conceived.
Both types of responses have a great potential to be self-fulfilling prophesies. If we understand the protesters on their own terms, and support them, we have the potential to build peace in the region that could last generations. If we continue to treat democracy in the Middle East as a threat, we will sow distrust and run a great risk of reaping a future of continued antagonism with the region. We cannot predict with certainty what the future will bring, but the choice that we make at this conjuncture cannot easily be undone. I urge everyone with the spirit to listen, and with faith in humanity, to emphasize understanding first. Judgment, as we all know, is never in short supply, a surplus is what has made peace so scarce in our world today.
Nick Copeland
Visiting Professor of Cultural Anthropology
University of Arkansas