Jewish and Arab ethnocentrism in Israel

Sumner (1906), in a classic essay, considers ethnocentrism as a universal syndrome of attitudes and behavior. The 'ingroup' sees itself as virtuous and superior and the 'outgroup' as contemptible and inferior, it sanctions association with its own members and dissociation with others, loves and trusts insiders and hates and distrusts outsiders, and so forth (LeVine and Campbell, 1972). Ethnocentrism is essential for the survival of the group and for keeping its distinct identity, culture, solidarity and ability to compete successfully with other groups. Although they simplify and distort reality, group preconceptions and prejudices provide the individual with a sense of direction and belonging. This perspective regards ethnocentrism as a permanent, functional, positive and universal group feature. It stands in contrast with the more common and critical approach which conceives of ethnocentrism as an antonym for cultural relativism and human equality, and identifies it with intolerance, chauvinism and racism. These competing conceptions emphasise different components of ethnocentrism, where a simple test of proportion and plausibility would produce more balanced and realistic appraisals. To be ethnocentric, attitudes must contain an excessive or unjustified element of superiority, rejection or hostility toward an outgroup. For instance, mistrust is not ethnocentric if it is firmly grounded in facts; objection to intermarriage is not prejudicial if minority and majority agree on separation. Judiciousness is therefore necessary for establishing a case of ethnocentrism. The task of examining each case is rather complex because ethnocentrism may manifest itself on individual and institutional levels. Spontaneous, personal ethnocentrism consists of an aggregate set of individual attitudes and behaviours, whereas organized, ideological ethnocentrism refers to public policies and institutional practices (Lanternari, 1980). Both forms should be explored. One should also look into the ethnocentrism of both sides of the ethnic divide. It is a long-standing tradition in the literature of intergroup relations to concentrate solely on the ethnocentrism of the dominant group because it is more freely expressed, entrenched and consequen-