Final paper sociology

University of Phoenix
Ethnocentrism and
Immigrants within the United
States
Final Project Sociological Issue
Sociology 120
Professor Lee Daffin
Mechelle Davidson
1/9/2012

Ethnocentrism and Immigrants within the United States
January 9, 2012
Table of Contents
Ethnocentrism ................................................................................................................... 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

January 9, 2012
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

January 9, 2012
(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.

January 9, 2012
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

January 9, 2012
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

January 9, 2012
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.

January 9, 2012
 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

January 9, 2012
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).
Immigrants
These 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).

January 9, 2012
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

January 9, 2012
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

January 9, 2012
 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.
CurrentImmigration 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 Allowingthe 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 actprovided more than 3,000,000 illegal aliens with amnesty and citizenship into the United
States.
3 This gave 38,000 Hungarians fleeinga failed attempt to overthrow the Soviet Union refuge, creatingthe
firstmass nationalization to occur in the United States for any one nationality.

January 9, 2012
 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 thattheU.S. Census Bureauconsiders Hispanic tomeanpersons ofSpanish/Hispanic/Latino originto include thoseof
Mexican,Cuban, Puerto Rican,DominicanRepublic, Spanish,and Central and SouthAmericanoriginliving in theUnited States whomay beof
any race orethnic group.

January 9, 2012
Ethnocentrism FuturePerspective
Looking 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.

January 9, 2012
References
Campbell, 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.

January 9, 2012
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

January 9, 2012
i Immigration History information compiled through U.S. Census Bureau (United States, 2011),World
Population Information (Population Reference Bureau, 2009), The World Factbook (CIA, 2011),and United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services website (USCIS, 2009).

Final paper sociology

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Similar to Final paper sociology

Similar to Final paper sociology (20)

More from Mechelle Davidson

More from Mechelle Davidson (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Final paper sociology