Ethnocentrism, at it’s core, is the human inclination to view the world through the narrow prism of one’s own cultural experience. This comes with many questions, “Isn’t it controversial?”, “It’s Unfair”, “Is it justified?”, and fascinatingly enough, none of these questions are wrong. When first understood, this term and its meaning at their literal senses seem way too “controversial”, “unjustified”, or by any other terms preferred by the novice, for this certain topic. And while extreme cases of ethnocentrism can make their names as “Nazis in Germany '', and “Rohingyas in Bangladesh” it’s completely understandable why. But, in the world already much full of negativity, today, I would like to put forward some unconventional thoughts upon this mystery and debate upon ethnocentrism, and would like to explore it through a lens which may have gone unnoticed till the present; Exploring it as a concept of life and identity, and not as what it has mostly and subsequently resulted in Violence.

While we think of ethnocentrism as a negative tendency that resides in all of us, and further instigates violence, we forget to analyse and examine it through a different perspective. Ethnocentrism is not just a mere feeling for violence, but rather an opportunity for us to help us establish our cultural identity, and use it as a tool to fill the void of individual’s practices. Let’s assume this with the help of an example, “Democracy”, when this term is used in layman's conversation, it’s mostly connected with the government, but is this term just confined to the government? No.

Exactly. The conventional usage of a term with a single topic doesn’t interpret that it can only be understood when subordinated with that single topic. To an extent, this is the way ethnocentrism also works.

Research and theories have shown that the ethnocentric beliefs towards someone, negative or positive, are established when one is truly and strongly connected with either their culture or beliefs, which in turn, also signals about one’s confidence in their identity and also creates a positive view on one’s culture. This provides upliftment to one’s culture, even if perceived in a negative way. When one has a strong belief with adequate awareness of their culture, the society automatically tends to question them less, and the one who tends to make these people accountable also isn’t able to tamper with their confidence or beliefs. This helps one to gain confidence and also view their culture from a positive lens. When we go the other way around, we also find ethnocentrism as a concept of life. Ethnocentrism, in conventional and negative usage, comes as a tendency or practice to judge someone else's culture on the rubrics of your own culture. While people are ethnocentric, people point out the voids of one culture “Oh, how a culture lacks the value of a certain thing, how unsympathetic!”. This kind of practice is confined to the cultures, but when we remove the cultural lens and try to associate it with other practices, on a very mere level, maybe the daily routine of two men. One is very productive, the other isn’t. The first man could be ethnocentric on the basis of practices he does, and point out what are the voids in another man‘s routine and help him suffice those voids and establish a better lifestyle. But such a prospect of this practice would seek one more requirement,which is to establish communication between the two parties, the one who is being ethnocentric, and the another one, who is the victim of ethnocentrism. If a well-connected communication channel isn’t established, the judgements and analysis made by the first party would turn futile. Thus, we conclude that not on all basis, but when critically analysed, we realise that rather than viewing Ethnocentrism as a catalyst of violence, we can give it some more thought and perceive it as a basis of identity. In conclusion, examining democracy through the lens of ethnocentrism allows us to better understand how we apply the term in our everyday lives, often without considering its broader, global implications. Ethnocentrism, which is the tendency to view the world through the perspective of one's own culture, shapes how we interpret democratic values. In many cases, this narrow viewpoint leads to an oversimplified understanding of democracy, focusing primarily on Western ideals while overlooking the diverse ways democracy can manifest in different cultural and political contexts.

When we define democracy based solely on familiar, local traditions—such as representative democracy, a cornerstone of Western political systems—we risk disregarding other forms of political participation that may be equally democratic but do not conform to this model. For example, systems that emphasize direct participation, indigenous governance practices, or even non-Western frameworks of collective decision-making, may be dismissed or misunderstood due to ethnocentric biases.

This limited view is further compounded by the tendency to ignore the global history of democracy, which is deeply intertwined with power dynamics, colonial legacies, and cultural differences. Without acknowledging these factors, we fail to appreciate how democracy operates in varied historical and social contexts. Thus, it is important to reflect on how ethnocentrism distorts our perceptions of democracy, both in theory and practice and how this influences our ability to engage with democratic ideas beyond our own cultural framework.

To move toward a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of democracy, we must challenge ethnocentric assumptions and broaden our perspective. This involves recognizing that democracy is not a one-size-fits-all concept but rather a dynamic and diverse set of practices that vary across cultures and societies. By embracing this complexity, we can foster more informed, respectful, and meaningful discussions about democracy that reflect a truly global perspective, free from cultural biases. Ultimately, this approach helps to cultivate a richer, more comprehensive vision of democratic ideals that are inclusive of all voices, regardless of cultural background.

In acknowledging ethnocentrism as a conceptual framework rather than just a precursor to violence, we can begin to unravel its complex role in shaping human experiences and interactions. By embracing this perspective, we open the door to deeper self-awareness and mutual understanding. We are invited to view ethnocentrism not as an obstacle, but as a starting point for meaningful dialogue and connection across diverse cultural landscapes. As we refine our approach, we move closer to a world where the richness of our varied identities contributes to, rather than detracts from our collective harmony.

.    .    .