In the chapter under the title “Culture, Ethnocentrism, and Contextualization,” Michael Rynkiewich focuses on three main aspects. First, he describes how the perception of the environment used to differ across the world, which predetermined the formation of various cultures. The next issue under review is the prevalence of a certain worldview in each nation that may lead to prejudice towards those whose behavior does not correspond to the rules. Finally, the author highlights the property of a certain culture to develop its own interpretation of the concepts that it adopts, which he actually labels as contextualization. The key idea of the writing apparently is the uniqueness of each culture and the subsequent impossibility of developing a universal worldview that the entire humanity would share.
By its definition, a culture is a collection of values as well as knowledge, through the lens of which people interact with the world. Initially, it emerges from the need for adapting to the surrounding conditions, notably, the challenges that the population face and the tasks that they are to complete on a daily basis (Rynkiewich, 2011). As routines depend directly and strongly on landscape and climate, hence the most relevant ways to survive, they differ substantially from region to region. Consequently, the cultures that appear in various areas in the course of time are dissimilar as well. A particular cultural paradigm is transmitted to further generations and determines their view of the environment, literally becoming the only reality that they believe to exist.
The behavioral patterns or customs that one culture does not accept may be common in the other, which principle, however, is frequently unclear to the bearers of both. Simply stated, people are inclined to assess the actions or values of culturally different individuals or groups from their own perspective that they regard as the only normal, therefore consider those improper. Distortions of such a kind frequently result in regarding the members of a foreign nation, who simply live in an alternative paradigm, as inferior due to their assumedly lower civility or poorer cognition. Rynkiewich (2011) calls this phenomenon ethnocentrism and highlights that its formation may be a stage of building social identity. Along with that, the given approach becomes dangerous in a situation where some culture begins to seek to become dominant and enforce itself on other groups of people.
Another consequence of ideological dissimilarities lies in impossibility to understand non-native concepts completely, which determines the need for so-called contextualization. In other words, so that the members of culture A are able to perceive and appreciate some notion that is peculiar to culture B, a presentation of that in its pure form is not sufficient. Instead, the notion is, metaphorically, to be wrapped in culture A, in which case its bearers perceive a new concept from their usual lens (Rynkiewich, 2011). This is presumably the only tool for productive cross-cultural communication.
To summarize, the key message that Rynkewich is apparently willing to transmit through the chapter under review is the organic dissimilarity of various cultures. Particular conditions favor a formation of a unique worldview, which the next generations inherit and adopt as their only acceptable value system. Those whose behavior is beyond that perspective may face an improper attitude up to direct discrimination. In addition, a dialogue between cultures is impossible without contextualizing specific concepts and ideas, that is, adapting them to the peculiarities of the different paradigm.
Reference
Rynkiewich, M. (2011). Soul, self, and society: A postmodern anthropology for mission in a postcolonial world. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books.