The Peculiar Afflictions of Ethnocentrism and White Nationalism
Two central tensions of humanity (and much of the animal kingdom) are what we call the Fight or Flight response and the idea of Circles of Concern, or concentric patterns of caring (Stoic or Platonic in origin). Fight or Flight entails anxiety about decision-making. Circles of Concern is about how wide a world we can embrace. We all know some people deal with either or both dilemmas better than others. They mitigate the tensions through filters of religion, mental health, conspiracy theories, and political allegiance. Society’s laws and norms reflect these tensions. So does flashy performative “enforcement” of immigration restrictions in places like Minneapolis, even at the cost of lives.
If we concede that flight is preferable to fight in some situations, and that concern for “all humanity” is the real care objective, rather than merely concern for those closest to us, we ought to be able to manage the tensions in socially productive ways. We sometimes exercise rational executive control over our actions. But frustratingly, the anxiety that comes from social divisions within our own community often prevents such executive control. We give up instead. We fight when we should flee, and vice versa. We can’t see beyond the boundaries we’ve created, or been taught, to the outer rings of caring.
Ethnocentrism is the affliction of those who believe their own cultural (ethnic) background is superior to others. In extreme cases, it expresses as open racism. To overcome this affliction, we’re only required to change our definition of “superiority.” If we cannot become truly cosmopolitan, at least we should be able to acknowledge discomfort with alien cultures absent the air of superiority. The borders between cultures should always be porous and malleable – never walled fortresses. What is gained by keeping others out, anyway? The answer depends on how we define our society, our country, our family. Christian universalism is one answer. Christian nationalism another. I tend to favor economists’ explanation of immigration, myself: it’s all about labor and growth. It’s about augmentation versus displacement. Perhaps some localities might be more affected by displacement while the larger economy benefits from consumer augmentation.
An even uglier version of ethnocentrism is white nationalism. I have never understood how such a concept as “Great Replacement Theory” can possibly gain a foothold – but it has, both in Europe and here in the U.S.A. True enough, demographically, white Europeans are likely to decline in proportion to other ethnic groups projecting into the future, but over the long-term, why does it matter? Are young white men worried about a shortage of prospective (attractive) mates in their lifetimes? Is there anything tangible at risk as cultures from the global South outproduce the dominant colonial European culture? This applies to biological reproduction as well as economic productivity. Remember, history builds on the past – white European culture has already “civilized” large segments of the non-white, non-European, population of the world. Those civilizational legacies will never fade away. Of course, the same can be said for Chinese culture – dating at least back to Han times –“civilizing” large parts of Asia. History, and culture, remembers.
Fundamental to the Fight or Flight dilemma is our evaluation of the power differential between us and the threat. If we perceive our power great enough to prevail, we fight … otherwise, we flee. This leads to the issue of evaluating that power differential (not to mention evaluation of the threat’s reality in the first place). What faculties, what knowledge, do we use to make such an evaluation? Certainly, deterrence is important – appearing strong enough to prevail is literally advertising power. We all try deterrence against threats. The root of this problem for the white nationalist is fearing not being powerful enough to ward off any threat from a non-white adversary. Such fear is likely the basis for things like Great Replacement Theory. One antidote for this fear might be to consider the adversary a customer! That way, we profit from the conflict. Another approach is to see the adversary as employer – labor markets and labor organizing being the appropriate power-enhancing tools. It is when market power and/or political power is lacking that flight becomes the most reasonable response – conversely, if we perceive market power and political power to be in our favor, we choose to fight.
Circles of Concern are different from the matter of power differentials. Here we confront shortcomings of understanding, the inability to see beyond the horizon. Short-termism is the broader affliction, and powerlessness is measured only by that limitation of perception; if you can only take care of yourself, or your immediate family, you are less powerful than somebody who can see more distant horizons, beyond your community, even to encompass all humanity. Such a powerful person is never ethnocentric; their comfort level extends much further. Both cosmopolitanism and Christian (or Buddhist) universalism extoll this condition as the goal of humanity. Ethnocentrism, certainly white nationalism, belong to the spiritually less developed. Overcoming fear of the more powerful is the secret to spirituality … to virtue itself. Certainly, material comfort is one way to overcome that fear of powerlessness. Understanding market power, and politics, helps.
So how do we encourage this feeling of social, and market, power? Both education and political messaging are traditionally used for this purpose. We want to create a more peaceful world through deterrence; newcomers in our society understand that they must follow our rules, assimilate, to reduce the threat they pose. Those already here can fight, rather than flee, having deterred the threats via mutual understanding. If our education fails to instill confidence, or if political messaging touts powerlessness more than social power, negative consequences result, like ethnocentrism or belief in wacky conspiracy theories. Cosmopolitans, those who prefer living in mixed, diverse, communities, have mastered the educational system and accepted their status as leaders. They understand their power and know how to use it. They are the privileged. But for many, one thing or another has prevented them from attaining this privileged status (much of it likely inherited). They must flee the adversary, build fortresses around religious observances, wall off their communities, and create some imaginary sense of superiority over other cultures. They choose flight, rather than fight. They act from weakness, not strength – and the walls erected around other’s communities hide them from view. The mysterious is always more threatening than the transparent. We all could stand to make personal projects of penetrating those fortifications. Foreign languages, history, and sociology should be emphasized in school. Cognitive empathy should be as much a goal as emotional empathy. And we don’t need to face all this alone.
— William Sundwick
Warp and Woof 