Ethnocentrism
Ethnographic approach to audience
research Ethnography has its roots in the
research traditions of anthropology and urban
sociology. David Deacon, Michael Picker-
ing, Peter Golding and Graham Murdock in
Researching Communications: A Practical Guide
to Methods in Media and Cultural Analysis
(Hodder Education, 2007) comment that ethno-
graphic research is part of a tradition that seeks
to explore ‘the ways that people make sense of
their social worlds and how they express these
understandings through language, sound, imag-
ery, personal style and social rituals’.
An important body of cultural research into
the relationship and interaction between TV
texts and audience has been described as ethno-
graphic, that is describing a culture, emphasizing
the native point of view. Ethnographic studies
have, for example, revealed the fact that people
respond to TV programmes much less along
lines of social class and in a much more varied
way than some commentators have believed.
Ethnophaulisms See ethnocentrism.
Ethnorelativism See ethnocentrism.
Ethos In communication terms, the ethos of a
communicator determines the image one has of
him/her at any given time – either one person or
a group. In their paper ‘A summary of experi-
mental research in ethos’, Speech Monographs,
30 (1963), Kenneth Anderson and Theodore
Clevenger Jr refer to research fi ndings that point
to two general categories of ethos: extrinsic and
intrinsic. Th e fi rst is the image, say, of a speaker
as it exists prior to a given speech; the second
is the image derived from elements during
the presentation of a speech, consciously or
unconsciously provided by the speaker. Th e fi nal
impression is a mixture of extrinsic and intrinsic
factors.
Th e prestige of a speaker, his/her appearance,
likeableness, credibility, social class, voice, etc.
contribute to his/her ethos. Anderson and Clev-
enger assert that evidence from research proves
‘that the ethos of the source is related in some
way to the impact of the message’ and that this
applies ‘not only to political, social, religious and
economic issues but also to matters of aesthetic
judgment and personal taste’.
Euphemism In polite circles, ‘belly’ is not
referred to, but ‘stomach’ is acceptable. Th at is
a euphemism, the rendering of blunt, harsh or
unpleasant terms in mild, inoff ensive or quaint
language. Thus ‘to die’ may be rendered
euphemistically as ‘to pass away’; a ‘bookie’
may prefer to seek more status by calling him/
herself a ‘turf accountant’. In advertising, ‘budgetIndian, English and Welsh. In a number of ways
ethnic background and identity may aff ect the
manner in which an individual communicates.
Th ose from the Caribbean-British community
may, for instance, use British Black English
based on Jamaican Creole as a linguistic marker
of ethnic identity.
Current areas of research within the media
and communication field include the media’s
role in the representation and construction of
ethnic identities, ethnicity and language, ethnic
diff erences in the use of non-verbal communi-
cation, and the infl uence of ethnic background
on social interaction. See ethnocentrism;
hybridization; intercultural commu-
nication; orientalism; other; prejudice.
See also topic guide under media issues and
debates.
Ethnocentrism Th e use of one’s own culture,
its norms and values, as a yardstick by which
to measure, to judge, the attributes and activi-
ties of other cultures. Such judgement bears the
implicit or explicit assumption that one’s own
culture is superior. Harry C. Triandis in Individ-
ualism and Collectivism (Westview Press, 1994)
is one of several researchers to argue that there
is a tendency for all humans to be ethnocentric.
If this is the case, then such a tendency could be
expected to have considerable impact upon the
way in which messages about other cultures are
interpreted and the way in which other cultures
are discussed in any one culture.
Stella Ting-Toomey in Communicating Across
Cultures (Guildford Press, 1999), with reference
to work of several research studies, proposes a
continuum of communicative behaviour that
ranges from ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism.
At the far ethnocentric end is communicative
behaviour that often disparages those from
other cultures – the use of ethnophaulisms,
for example names, nicknames and sayings used
to belittle others, is found here; whilst at the far
ethnorelativistic end is communicative behav-
iour that is supportive, inclusive and provides
encouragement to those from other cultures.
Ethnocentrism is seen by many commentators
on media performance to infl uence the coverage
of news. We see, and thus report, the world
through the lens of our ethnocentric perception,
often falling into the trap of envisioning that
world in terms of us and them (see wedom,
theydom). It follows that objectivity is often
at the mercy of how we see the world rather than
how it actually is. See agenda-setting; event:
americanizing of; media imperialism;
news values; other; prejudice; stereotype.