The Ethnocentric Basis of Social Science Knowledge Production

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Since the dawn of the 20th century and indeed before, racial minorities have occasionally criticized the ethnocentric attributes of Euro-American scholarship. This sporadic opposition was solidified and systematized during the 1960s, when the civil rights movements began to extend from political, economic, and social arenas to intellectual circles. During that time and since, Chicanos, blacks, Native Americans, Asians, and other sociological minorities attempted to demystify the claims of Euro-American social science knowledge production to being value-free and universal. Their arguments, which were understandably controversial, brought about awareness in social science disciplines that no matter how well tested a theory is and no matter how well constructed social research instruments are, they are human constructs and are therefore embedded in the cultural background of social scientists. The social sciences are ethnocultural institutions that, as we shall see, are reflectors and microcosms of the societal hegemony privileges of Euro-Americans. Certainly the racial minorities' critique of the social sciences as ethnocultural enterprises has enlightened us about the monoculturalism of mainline social scientific paradigms and about the political and organizational dynamics which give preeminence to Euro-American contributions to the social sciences and which consign those of racial minorities to the sidelines. But for the most part this provocative literature tends to be too impressionistic to be of much long-term value. Its shallow substance, promises, and conclusions can be attributed to at least three problems. First, the understandable indignation racial minority scholars feel about how much the mainstream social sciences ignore them and distort their