I Am A Real Werewolf

Werewolves and Ethnocentrism

One major problem that, to some extent understandably, is overlooked in the questioning of the existence of werewolves is the ethnocentrism of human interpretation. Ethnocentrism describes a fr<x>ame of thinking in which one’s own culture is seen as superior to all others. In the field of Anthropology, this concept is relevant when a person is trying to understand a group of people that is different from them. If you were to interpret another culture’s actions ba<x>sed on the standards of your own culture, you would be assuming that your culture’s standards are the correct ones, and that all people can and should be judged by or through them. But how does this apply to werewolves? Well, I am not suggesting that the existence of werewolves would require their categorization as a unique culture. Rather, I am using the idea of applying one’s own way of thinking as though it is the superior fr<x>amework. Arguments about the existence of werewolves are abundant on the internet (if you can call most of them arguments since they tend to be short, opinionated statements with little to no evidence). The majority argue against their potential existence while only a portion argue for it, and yet most of either group tend to rely on popular conceptions about werewolves retrieved primarily from current media and only somewhat from myths and legends. However, regardless of the “purity” of your source information, I argue that most of these sources are inherently flawed because of a form of ethnocentrism.

People on both sides will argue using the same collection of examples, either defending them or tearing them apart. But how reliable are myths, legends, and popular media if they are (as far as we know) all written by humans? Even if someone claimed to be well-learned on the subject, arguing ba<x>sed on information collected and interpreted by humans is excluding the possibility that the truth might be different from what humans say it is. How is that not both completely arrogant and almost inexcusably foolish (considering the supposed “modern-ness” of our time)? Now, some may say that this argument is pointless if they are among those who argue that werewolves do not exist. Actually, this is something to consider if werewolves do exist, and honestly, even in making an argument against their existence. You cannot assume that information from humans about non-humans is entirely accurate because it eliminates the potential voice of the actual subject of the argument; the people who would know better than anyone what it means and what it is like to be a werewolf. For those who argue against the existence of werewolves, this chasm in thought applies to you as well. How do you know that the information you use to justify your argument is relevant? I have made this argument before with my Debunking Paradox, but for now just consider this: if you, perhaps, laugh at the idea of people transforming into wolves under a full moon after drinking out of a wolf’s paw print (or some other supposed way of becoming a werewolf), how much power does your counter-argument have if that information you laugh at was written by humans? Should we always just unquestionably accept the interpretations of people who have nothing to do with the group they are writing about? If you do this, you cannot claim to be scientific. The reality is that, whether you are arguing for or against the existence of werewolves (or any similar being), relying on information written by humans for humans is ethnocentric, suggesting that the “truth” lies with those outside of the group not with those who would actually know what it is like to be a part of that group.