Emic and etic perspectives: what they are, and 6 differences between them

The emic and etic perspectives applied to scientific knowledge have allowed us to acquire different views of social phenomena. Its antecedents are found in structuralist linguistics, however, they have moved significantly to sociology and anthropology, since they allow the elaboration of different responses and explanations of behavior social.

In an introductory way we will see below what it is and where do etic and emic perspectives come from, as well as some of their main differences.

• Related article: "The 5 differences between signified and significant"

From linguistics to social behavior

The concepts of "etic" and "emic" are neologisms that he introduced for the first time by the American linguist Kenneth Pike, to refer to how social behavior occurs and is understood. Etic corresponds to the suffix of the word "phonetic" (which means phonetic, in English), and "emic" corresponds to the word "phonemic" (which means phonemic, also in English).

Phonetics is a branch of linguistics. which studies the sounds we produce to communicate. As a concept, it refers to the sounds of language that are based on a taxonomy of active in speech, as well as their environmental effects understood as acoustic waves.

Phonemics, for its part, is another branch of linguistics and refers to the ability of listeners to not only listen but to identify and manipulate phonemes (the minimum phonological units, which belong to each language). It refers to the sounds that are in implicit awareness, or in non-awareness, and that help speakers to identify different expressions of their own language.

Pike takes these terms to develop two epistemological perspectives that would allow us to understand social behavior as an analogy of the main linguistic structures. That is, it tries to apply the principles by which linguists discovered the phonemes, morphemes and other units of language, to discover emic units of behavior social.

6 differences between emic and etic perspectives

Etic and emic perspectives in the social sciences have been useful in offering different explanations for what motivates social behavior. In other words, they have arisen with the intention of answering, for example, why certain human groups behave in a specific way, why they interact the way they do, or how they have organized themselves in a certain way determined.

Broadly speaking, the answers to these questions have taken two paths. On the one hand, there are those who say that the motives of social conduct can only be understood by the explanation given by the actors themselves about said reasons. This would be an emic stance.

And on the other hand, there are those who say that social behaviors, and their motives, can be explained through direct observation of someone outside. This would be an etic position. According to Pike, the use of an etic and emic perspective can have consequences and an important ethical background, especially when the descriptions are translated into instrumental measurements.

Below we will briefly look at five differences that have to do with how we investigate and understand our societies and behaviors.

1. Observer-participant relationship

An emic perspective seeks that there is a context of interaction in which the observer and the informant meet and hold a discussion on a particular topic.

For its part, an etic perspective defines and describes social behavior considering mainly the logic of the observer actor. The structure that exists beyond the mind of the actors is prioritized.

2. The motive of social behavior

When asked about what events, entities or relationships are like, an emic perspective would say that the answer is in the heads of the people who star in these events, entities or relationships.

On the other hand, when faced with the same question, an etic perspective would say that the answer lies in the observable behavior of the people who are the protagonists of said events, entities or relationships.

3. Explanatory knowledge validity

Emic is a perspective that works from the point of view of the actors. The events of daily life, customs, habits, rituals, etc., are not defined by those who perform them, and this is considered the valid definition.

As understood in relation to non-conscious meanings or structures, the emic is considered a difficult perspective to defend in terms of scientific rigor.

Etic is a perspective that is approached from the point of view of the observer. Here cultural events, customs, habits, daily life, etc., are explained based on the description made by the person who looks (not the one who acts those events), and that is the explanation that is considered valid.

4. Similar perspectives

An emic perspective is closer to a subjectivist perspective of knowledge, while an etic perspective is closer to the objectivist paradigm of knowledge.

5. related methodologies

The emic perspective is concerned with the social construction of meaning, with questioning and exploring the emic purposes of behaviour. Therefore, an example of methodology are the descriptions made based on interviews with the social actors.

For its part, the etic perspective, which is more interested in the descriptions of the external agent, can perform, for example, comparative research between what is observed in different cultures.

• You may be interested in: "Cultural universals: what all societies have in common"

6. They are not always so different

The emic and etic perspectives are approaches that may not coincide, and what is more: they are frequently understood and used as completely exclusive descriptions.

Kenneth Pike and Marvin Harris (American anthropologist who took up and developed Pike's theories), have problematized this and have managed to exemplify in which moments the etic and emic gazes coincide, and in which moments they distance themselves from each other, as well as the consequences of said coincidences and distances.

One of the things that people interested in emic and etic perspectives have had to ask themselves has been how mental belief systems, language, and behavior itself are connected. In other words, it has also been necessary to question whether what we say about what we do gives a faithful idea of ​​the motives for the conduct; or if what we see that we do is actually what gives us a closer idea of ​​the motives for the behavior itself.

Sometimes what we do matches what we say about what we do, other times it doesn't. And it is largely for this reason that the emic and etic perspectives cannot be sharply separated, but must be understood in relation. Is about approaches that can be useful and complementary to understand our social behavior.

Bibliographic references:

• Harris, M. (1976). History and significance of the emic/etic distinction. Annual Review of Anthropology. 5: 329-350.