Emic Versus Etic Distinction

The emic versus etic distinction suggests that some terms or concepts are specific to a culture (emics), whereas some terms or concepts are common across cultures (etics). For example, in the Japanese language, there is no distinction between the l and r sounds. The nearest equivalent sound is more like a quickly rolled r sound, so l is more foreign to the Japanese ear. Therefore, from a phonemic perspective, r is meaningful, whereas l is not. In English, Brislin cited the ng sound as being nonexistent to begin a word, whereas it is a common sound at the beginning of words in other languages.

On the other hand, from a phonetic perspective, l, r, and ng are all identifiable sounds. Linguists have compiled a list of sounds that are meaningful in at least one culture, and although a sound may be meaningful in one culture and not in another, all cultures can at least identify that the sound exists. In English, we do not have a trilled r sound in any of our words, but we can certainly identify this sound in many Spanish words.

In applying these linguistic roots to cross-cultural investigation, emics deals with terms and concepts that are meaningful within one culture, whereas etics deals with terms and concepts that can be generalized across cultures. Those who attempt to identify universal [Page 170]characteristics of people across all cultures (e.g., all cultures have something equivalent to “work” and equivalent to “play” and a way to distinguish between the two) are approaching human behavior from an etic perspective.

Harry Triandis has been among the leaders in examining emic and etic issues. As an example of how a term may have a different meaning within one culture, Triandis and other researchers have discussed the term self-reliance. In individualistic societies, self-reliance carries with it a sense that one can pursue one's own goals, and it has a tinge of competition in its definition. However, in collectivistic societies, self-reliance carries with it a sense that one does not want to burden those around them, and there is no sense of competition. Thus, whereas self-reliance does have meaning across cultures, it has different connotations within cultures.

Although etics may be an important pursuit, researchers can often impose their own culture-bound perspective on other cultures. John Berry calls this phenomenon imposed etics. For example, the famous Walter Mischel studies on delay of gratification have been cited as examples of imposed etics. Mischel sought to study delay of gratification and had a predictive model based on examination of European American children. When he applied this methodology to African American children in the inner city, he concluded that these children lacked the ability to delay gratification, which contributed to their continued existence in the inner city. However, upon further analysis, the children in his study seemed to actually be responding in an adaptive manner that eluded Mischel's detection. Thus, his conclusion of their lack of delay of gratification was an imposed etic based on his culturally encapsulated view.

Imposed etics may apply to the very topic under study. Although the Mischel studies can be criticized for misinterpreting the results, the criticism was that Mischel was using one interpretation instead of another. No one denies that the concept of delay of gratification is understood in both the European American and African American communities. However, because delay of gratification may be more appropriate to study in European American communities as opposed to inner-city African American communities, it may be inappropriate to even venture to study delay of gratification in communities where such a construct is irrelevant.

...