What's the word for this?

slowburner

I am looking for a word to describe the following concept.
'The act of describing older cultures, or cultures with different technologies as inferior or primitive.'

If no such word exists, it would be interesting to construct one.

clintondaly

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ethnocentrism

Possibly?

Thud

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generationism

slowburner

Very close, but I think ethnocentrism points more towards the elevation of one's own culture.
Generationism is even closer but omits other technologies.
I'm being really picky, I know, but if only there was a word which encompassed both.

Ethnocentric generationism is a touch cumbersome.

Aside from this, when would ethnocentrism etc., become ethnocantralism?

P. Breathnach

slowburner wrote: »

... Ethnocentric generationism is a touch cumbersome....

Ethnogenerationism?

pickarooney

By older cultures do you mean the culture of our own peoples as they were hundreds of years ago or foreign cultures that have been around longer? Can you give an example?

clintondaly

pejorative

a Term used several hundred years ago

slowburner

Answer to Pickarooney

All and any culture.

I'll try to give an example (sort of).

I often get the impression that people believe stone age folk were somehow less clever, possibly even a bit stupid, simply because they had a less refined set of technologies.
The reality is that we, as people, are no more clever then they were. We simply have different resources and technologies.
Some might argue that we could even be seen as inferior.
If all the technologies we depend upon were suddenly stripped away, and we had to compete for survival with a person from the stone age, with their stone age know-how: it's a fairly safe bet who would fare best.
This mouthful might do it - Technochronocentrism

Chronocentrism is alluded to here
http://orientem.blogspot.com/2007/02/agaisnt-chronocentrist-moderns.html

biko

Hm, sounds somewhat Hegelian.

slowburner

biko wrote: »

Hm, sounds somewhat Hegelian.

In what sense?

Thud

slowburner wrote: »

Answer to Pickarooney

All and any culture.

I'll try to give an example (sort of).

I often get the impression that people believe stone age folk were somehow less clever, possibly even a bit stupid, simply because they had a less refined set of technologies.
The reality is that we, as people, are no more clever then they were. We simply have different resources and technologies.
Some might argue that we could even be seen as inferior.
If all the technologies we depend upon were suddenly stripped away, and we had to compete for survival with a person from the stone age, with their stone age know-how: it's a fairly safe bet who would fare best.
This mouthful might do it - Technochronocentrism

Chronocentrism is alluded to here
http://orientem.blogspot.com/2007/02/agaisnt-chronocentrist-moderns.html

sounds anarcho-primitivist...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

biko

slowburner wrote: »

In what sense?

In that Hegel dialectic, based on the thesis/antithesis/synthesis, shows how societies strive upwards.
Long time since I studied this stuff but something like that.

slowburner

Thud wrote: »

sounds anarcho-primitivist...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism

Luddism?

slowburner

biko wrote: »

In that Hegel dialectic, based on the thesis/antithesis/synthesis, shows how societies strive upwards.
Long time since I studied this stuff but something like that.

Was it not Marx who applied the dialectic to a model of society?
Long time since it sat on a desk in front of me too, but I seem to remember that Hegel's dialectic was more to do with logic and epistemology than social theory.

griffdaddy

It's also called the 'contemporary fallacy' somewhere, been a few years since I studied philosophy though.