FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Anthropology
"El Costarricense": An analysis of the Costa Rican national character. A paper submitted to Dr. Bruce Grindal in order to fulfill the requirements for the directed individual study class "Readings in Anthropology".
Edgar Salgado-Garcia 591-08-0181
Tallahassee, Florida 17 June, 1992
To my friend and "colleague" IĂąigo Lejarza, a true Spanish-Costa Rican, who has taught me so much without maybe knowing it.
"En este libro parto de una verdad de hecho, es decir, una afirmacion que senala o recoge un hecho...el costarricense ha desarrollado una colectividad socio-politica sobre las bases de la libertad individual y de la convivencia".
Constantino Lascaris.
Introduction.
The main purpose of the present paper is to analyze and discuss the book "El Costarricense" (The Costa Rican), written by the Spanish philosopher Constantino Lascaris. This book is considered as one of the most important characterizations of the Costa Rican way of being, since it was written by a foreigner who lived in Costa Rica for several years, and because he was a highly respected individual. I would like to address the following question: Is it possible to describe the personality of the Costa Ricans? Therefore, I will contrast Lascaris' view with my own, a native Costa Rican, and at the same time, with that of several authors who have addressed the definition of national character. For this reason, I will start with a brief introduction to the concept of national character, summarizing the views of the main theorists who have written about this controversial issue. Then I will analyze Lascaris' book from three perspectives, namely: His method, the contents of his book, and the conclusions that he draws from his work. Perhaps a brief introduction to Costa Rica would help to understand the book. Costa Rica is a small country located in Central America. It borders Nicaragua to the North and Panama to the South East, and it has access to both the Pacific and the Atlantic (Caribbean) oceans. Its area is approximately 51,000 square kilometers, and the population is about three million. A former Spanish colony, it gained independence in 1821. Costa Rica has been known for being a pacific country. Since 1948, the army was outlawed. In 1987, president Oscar Arias was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring peace to the troubled Central American nations. Costa Rica has had a history of only a few wars and dictatorships, and elections have been practiced regularly every four years. Recent research in social indicators points to Costa Rica's superior standards in housing, health, and education in all Latin America. However, many social problems are still present.
Costa Ricans are also known as "Ticos", because of the way they speak. They are known for using words that end with "tico", which in Spanish is a diminutive (i.e. it denotes that a thing is small). The concept of national character.
In this section, I would like to introduce the concept of national character in its historical development. This introduction will serve as a general background for the discussion of the Costa Rican national character. Just as it happens within the field of psychology, anthropology and sociology have found several limitations when trying to summarize, characterize, or describe the behavior of a group of individuals. In this case, when using the term "national character", we are dealing with the characterization of a large group of people, in a way analogous to that used by psychologists to describe the personality of an individual. The idea that common personalities exist among peoples was known to the ancient Greeks and Arabs. Hippocrates and Galen used the notion of temperament to characterize people, and the Arab social scientist Ibn-Khaldun stated that there were common patterns of feeling in races, nations, cultures, and peoples in general. Harris (1983) mentions that attempts to describe the personality of people from different places dates back to Gerardus Mercator, a Belgian cartographer in the sixteenth century. He summarized the basic personalities of several European peoples. Honigmann (1967) points out a study by the British philosopher David Hume. In 1748, Hume said that people acquire similar traits through their mutual relations, and compared this process to that of "contagion" (i.e. passing of similar characteristics from one individual to the other and throughout generations). During World War II, the United States showed an increasing interest in studying the ways of life of other countries. Many anthropologists were hired to conduct research
in places such as the Soviet Union, Japan, and other countries in Asia. However, there was much controversy, as many of these studies were actually being done with immigrants and not with the people living in the countries being studied. Furthermore, the complexity of a society is directly related to the level of difficulty when trying to characterize a whole nation. For example, societies in which there are distinct minority groups, marked social distinctions and division of labor, there is a higher probability that a description of its basic personality will not fit every individual. For this reason, some social scientists believe that a complete description of a group of people, in this case a nation, is nearly impossible. Edward Sapir said that descriptions of culture are always subjective; that if we take an individual from that culture and show him or her a copy of our account, that individual will probably not agree with it, or at least will find that something has been left out. As Hume himself said almost 250 years ago, the personality of a soldier is much different from that of a priest, yet they both live in the same community or nation. While some believe that social complexities are so intricate that a study of a nation will always be doomed to failure, still others persist in their efforts to come up with accounts of the way of being of peoples from different places. Ralph Linton stated that all cultures tend to show a pattern, that there are certain values and attitudes that are dominant. Perhaps what he was trying to say is that, while there are obvious differences, if we look closely, we will be able to find that special level at which all people from a particular culture share something in common. For example, Inkeles (1961) gave a list of different ways of defining national character. Each one of these assumes that there is something distinctive about a specific nation. However, that common pattern can be found at different levels, as we shall see:
1. National character as institutional pattern. This approach attempts to characterize a nation by studying its dominant political and economic institutions.
2. National character as culture theme. Focuses on social institutions such as the family, friendship, the local community, values, attitudes, philosophy of life, religion, and others. This is the most common approach among anthropologists, and is the one that Constantino Lascaris used, in his own way, to characterize Costa Ricans in his book.
3. National character as action. Stress is placed on economic and political action (behavior and its consequences). The approach particularly focuses on the history of a nation, and from that historical account goes on to characterize it.
4. National character as racial psychology. An approach that assumes people to possess inherited characteristics that define them as belonging to a particular "race". This was used during Nazi Germany.
During the first half of the present century, a large number of studies have been done using one or more of the preceding approaches, especially in Europe and the United States (Inkeles, 1961). Going back to the issue of patterning in culture, I would like to summarize Honigmann's (1967) excellent account of the most important social scientists who have faced the problems of describing the national character. For this purpose, I will use the term "social personality" for denoting the personality of a group of people in a general sense, as it is used by Honigmann. Therefore, we will see how different scientists have tried to approach the study of social personality, giving it different names, and through a diversity of methods. Wilhelm Dilthey tried to look for general attitudes and motives in the cultures' philosophies. He said that the worldview of the group is more significant than the view of only one individual. Emile Durkheim regarded the "collective consciousness" as the higher form of mental life, yet he said that it could not be studied by the current methods of psychology at that time. Anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict recognized the
complexities and difficulties of characterizing a group of people, yet she believed that there is a common pattern in all cultures. The same opinion was held by Ralph Linton. Benedict's view of patterning is consistent with the notion of Gestalt, or whole. Her method was a deductive one, starting from the whole and then going down to the individual personality. George Devereaux, in attempting to study what he calls "ethnic personality" (his own term for social personality), says that there are amoral unconscious contents that escape through certain cultural practices. Thus, when studying such practices, we can have access to that culture's own unconscious. Cultural practices allow for accepted forms of expressing people's desires and unconscious motives. An example of this phenomenon is found among shamans. In every culture, Deveraux says, shamans play an important role in translating the bizarre material from the "ethnic unconscious" into actions that the other members of the community readily understand. In this same line of thought, Branislaw Malinowski also said that defense mechanisms, in particular repression, vary with culture. These accounts of patternings in people's personalities are heavily influenced by psychoanalytic thought. For example, Deveraux, as well as Erich Fromm and Abram Kardiner, are all psychiatrists who ventured into social psychology and then into sociology and anthropology. The methods, theories, and basic approaches of both psychology and anthropology became interrelated through the works of these authors. Erich Fromm, using the term "social character", held the premise that every system shapes human nature to conform to its needs. Social character, then, refers to "...the governing motivations that gear people to the main goals toward which a social system is headed" (Honigmann, 1967, p.104). However, his approach is not mechanicist at all. He recognizes that there are basic human needs that, if not satisfied, can move people to organize and fight for their rights. In this sense, he follows the ideas of Karl Marx, stressing that it is the social being which determines individual consciousness.
Therefore, a mode of production creates a unique social character, through the action of social institutions such as the family and the school, which translate the system's needs into expectations, rules, and rewards for appropriate behavior. Another psychiatrist, Abram Kardiner, spoke about a psychological process called "projection" when studying what he termed "basic personality". Through the process of projection, people's primary personality is expressed in the "secondary institutions" (roughly superstructure in the Marxist sense). For example, "primary institutions" (those that have to do with child rearing and learning experiences in the family) create a series of traumas that are indelible throughout life. Kardiner believes that these traumas, though people are unaware of them, are never completely erased, and that their expression is seen later in religion, myths, politics, and other secondary institutions. As we can see, this approach is heavily influenced by Freudian theory. Margaret Mead, the renowned American anthropologist, used the term "national character" to denote that common psychic structure embodied in all members of a nation, following Edward Sapir's notion that personality and culture go hand in hand. Mead's approach assumes that the "national character" includes not only nuclear motivating states of personality, but also attitudes, perceptions of the rules, political system, and religion. According to Mead, polling is not enough, for this method tries to differentiate between social classes, and the questions are often too many and do not reflect people's feelings. On the contrary, she seeks to deal with the people directly, and that every member of a society is worthy of being studied. The steps to be taken in order to study national character, according to Margaret Mead, are the following:
1. Each way of life, and every personality is a whole. Therefore, behavior is interrelated across situations. Childhood behavior is reflected in other social institutions. This holism presupposes that there is no accurate way of measuring national character. A
diversity of methods are to be used: motion pictures, novels, books, Rorschach protocols, and others.
2. The second assumption is concerned with the psychic unity of humankind. People everywhere possess the same basic human nature. Human beings behave differently not because of race or heredity, but because of culture and learning.
3. Every member of a nation is systematically representative of his or her culture. However, every person embodies culture in his or her own way, depending on social position, age, sex, and other characteristics.
4. In a large society, every member is capable of providing useful information about that society. Therefore, it is not necessary to ask everyone the same questions. The social scientist has to evaluate that person's role and position in the society, and then direct the questions in order to fit the individual.
As we have seen, the issue of whether a nation can be characterized in terms of a uniform pattern of behavior or personality, has been a major point of discussion during the present century. As the social sciences have evolved, many scientists have come to realize that, even though new and powerful methods have been developed, there is still a major difficulty when studying human beings. However, we must recognize individual differences between people in each culture, just as we know that people from different cultures act and think in different ways. Perhaps there will always be a dichotomy between particularist and general approaches to knowledge, as it has been the case in the social sciences. Yet we cannot give up on the endeavor of finding certain general patterns not only in humankind, but also in different cultures of the world, using all the methods that we have. As
Honigmann pointed out, "...to reject any path to knowledge is to choose to be that much poorer" (Honigmann, 1967, p.99) when referring to those who oppose "intuitive" methods to knowledge. In the next section, I would like to introduce the book "El Costarricense", written by Constantino Lascaris. This will serve as an example of an informal, subjective, almost "intuitive" approach to the study of the people of Costa Rica. The main objective is to try to extract parts of the book that explicitly deal with what we have been calling the "social personality" or "national character" of the Costa Ricans. Another issue is to pay attention to how Lascaris' historical account of Costa Rica is used to explain how the Costa Ricans are nowadays. Finally, a discussion of the method that he followed and how the author sees it will be provided.
El Costarricense.
Constantino Lascaris, a Spanish philosopher, teacher, and scholar, came to Costa Rica hardly knowing a thing about the country and its people. Sixteen years later, in 1975, after living among the people and visiting most places in the country, he decided to write a book about the Costa Ricans. He had been a professor at the University of Costa Rica and at the same time he had written some books about the development of the philosophical thought in the country and published several articles. His book is considered a most important work in the literature about the Costa Rican way of life. This is due to the great respect that Lascaris gained through his career in the country, and because it comes from an individual that, being a foreigner, came to understand and to appreciate Costa Rica to the point of choosing to become a Costa Rican citizen.
I would like to analyze Lascaris' book at three levels: First, the method he follows, second, the contents of his analysis of the Costa Rican way of life, and lastly, the conclusions that he draws from his study.
1. The method. In the introduction to the book, Lascaris makes some comments about the method he followed in order to write the book. He points out that his method is a subjective one. He had no intention in following the method of any particular science, such as anthropology, sociology, or psychology. The information was gathered through spontaneous and informal conversations with his many friends throughout the years he spent in the country. However, given the preparation and the position of the author, I think that he had enough intellectual as well as factual resources from which to characterize the Costa Ricans. For example, many of the examples he gives about popular customs and traditions are drawn from literary works, and the analyses that he provides about Costa Rican Spanish language are neatly illustrated with quotes from ancient Spanish poets such as Quevedo, Lope de Vega, and Cervantes. This level of analysis, as Margaret Mead suggested, is clearly a path to the understanding of a culture (although certainly not the only one). Lascaris shows a broad knowledge of the Costa Rican literature, especially that concerned with popular traditions from the rural areas, and then he compares the language with the Spanish authors. This is especially interesting because it serves as a way to explain Costa Rica's isolation from the rest of the Spanish American colonies. The language that is still in use in Costa Rica, according to Lascaris, reflects the way Spaniards from the XV century spoke. Other sources that Lascaris uses consists of presidents' speeches, newspaper articles, popular songs, poetry, folktales, myths and legends, popular sayings, regional words, and personal anecdotes. That is, Lascaris fully experiments with many different
sources that express and reflect culture. All of his conclusions about particular issues are supported by a detailed discussion that incorporates all of these sources. For example, when discussing the origin of a particular word, he traces the story as it is told by common people, and then he contrasts that version with a historical analysis as well as a linguistic one. Lascaris did not do a survey, nor did he employ any statistical methods. On the contrary, he used a more interpretive method, in which diverse sources of information and a historical analysis were the rule. Furthermore, he explicitly acknowledged his approach, and said that "...my purpose is to try to explain everyday life and not the superstructures" (Lascaris, 1975, p.10). The author makes his own interpretations and he knew it. And he also knew that his conclusions were going to be biased in some sense, for he had to use his own judgment in order to infer which features were characteristics of what he thought was the "typical Costa Rican": "I intend to describe The Costa Rican and not one or some Costa Ricans. And since The Costa Rican is present only in Costa Ricans, I will provide with the image of the Costa Rican that I have abstracted from the Costa Ricans I have met. In other words, I have generated particular behaviors when it has seen to me that they reflect collective ways of behavior" (Lascaris, 1975, p.11).
2. The contents. Although this is a rather long book covering a diversity of topics, I am most concerned with the specific historical analysis and the characterization itself that Lascaris makes of the Costa Ricans. For this reason, I have extracted some of the basic subsections from the two first chapters that deal, specifically, with the historical background, and then with the basic characteristics of Costa Ricans, their culture, and behavior.
a) Geographical setting. Lascaris describes, in full detail, the location and climate of Costa Rica. He points out the importance of the mountains and the forests, and explicitly states that the scarcity of population, in contrast with the abundance of forests and jungles, could in fact explain something about the life of the people. In Spanish: "Y esto es lo que me interesa destacar como descripcion geografica de Costa Rica. Que es puro monte. Pues esto pueda acaso explicarnos como ha sido la vida del pueblo que aqui ha venido viviendo" (Lascaris, 1975, p.21). (And this is what I am interested in pointing out as a geographical description of Costa Rica. That it is "pure jungle". For maybe this could explain how the life of the people that have been living here has been).
b) Ethnic and cultural origins. According to Lascaris, the great majority of the Costa Rican population is of Spanish descent. The first settlers came during the XVII and XVIII centuries to the Central Valley, coming not directly from Spain, but rather from other colonies such as Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia. Apparently, these first settlers did not come from any particular Spanish province. They were called "Gallegos", but Lascaris rejects the fact that the name reflected any affiliation, but rather a way of behaving. "Gallegos" in Spain are people very similar in their behavior to the first settlers who went into the mountains, and hence their name. On the Atlantic coast, the author mentions the large black population. These individuals came mainly from Jamaica to work in the construction of railways. They speak English and are mostly protestant, in contrast with the majority of the population. Until the 1960s they were virtually isolated from the rest of the country. Then in the North West Pacific, in the provinces of Guanacaste and Puntarenas, there are many "mestizos", or people of mixed Indian and Spanish, or even black descent. However, in
Costa Rica these groups do not show a strong racism. According to Lascaris, there is a common feeling of equality.
c) Isolation and "going into the mountain". Since the XVII century, Costa Rica was a rather isolated province. This was due to the geographical factors that we have mentioned, and to the small Indian and Spanish population. The first inhabitants settled in the middle of the country, getting into the mountains. This process was named by Lascaris "enmontanamiento", a Spanish word meaning "getting or going into the mountains". This is one of Lascaris' most crucial theses, for he strongly believes that this process selected a "human type" during the XVII and XVIII centuries. The reasons for fleeing to the mountains were simple: The Catholic church taxed the people and therefore tried to hold them together in towns, where going to church on Sundays was an obligation. These people did not want to live controlled, so they left and made a living by themselves. I present a summary of what Lascaris thinks are the basic characteristics of these people, in themselves a prototype of the contemporary Costa Rican: 1- Silent, individualistic people, who had to work on their own. 2- Pacific people, who would not have come to the mountain if they were to steal or disturb others. 3- People who did not trust anybody, timid, without any luxuries, people that valued their work. 4- People who respected human life, not because there is a written contract, but because of hard work and cooperation within the family. These people were free from any kind of authority.
Following Lascaris' discussion, it is not clear whether these people were "selected" because they went into the mountains, or whether they did it because they already possessed these characteristics. Anyhow, Lascaris thinks that both situations actually happened, and that these first Costa Ricans gave rise to the modern ways of life.
d) The demographic expansion. In 1719, the governor of Costa Rica, Diego de La Haya said in a report that in the whole province there were no barbers, doctors, markets, nor shops; that everyone had to grow their own food, even the governor himself. During the XVIII century, the capital city of Cartago had less than 600 inhabitants. In 1569, six years after its foundation, Cartago had a population of only 100. To this respect, Lascaris says that "in other nations, the history of the (political) apparatus does inform us (about the people), for rulers have imposed their personal seal on the people. But in Costa Rica, the Costa Ricans have lived "apart" from the rulers" (Lascaris, 1975, p.41). The fact that the population was so small, along with the process of getting into the mountains and the geographical characteristics of the country, gave rise to a distinct way of life. All of the factors that we have analyzed so far melt together to form an individual that, in trying to live free from authority, developed a sense of freedom and individuality. Lascaris cites three renowned Costa Rican authors who held the same view: One of them, Leon Pacheco, said in 1972 that Costa Ricans had developed a strong individualism, without ambitions, a sense of freedom above all, because during colonial times they lived the way they wanted to, in a literal absence of government, working on their very own. Another author, Samuel Rovinski, pointed out that cities still have a "countryside" mentality; that there is no conscience among workers. Fabian Dobles, a well-known novelist, said that mutual respect and equality was the rule, despite the fact that some had more than others.
For this reason, Lascaris states that nowadays there is a nostalgia about the Costa Rica of the times of the mountain people, and that this is clear in the revival of traditional motives such as coffee, the oxcart, and "concherias" (the way of life of the campesinos or peseants). This Lascaris sums up in a nostalgia for the close human relations of the ancestors. However, Lascaris strongly believes that in Costa Rica the cities still preserve much of the rural areas, as we shall see later.
e) In defense of the "Pulperia". "Pulperia" is the regional term for a small shop located in small towns, where basic goods were sold and social gatherings took place. There were three basic functions to the "pulperia": To give credit, to provide people with basic food and household goods, and to exchange things when people did not have money. The town was a small cluster of houses where the mountain people would come once a week to buy supplies and to socialize. Perhaps it could be said that this situation gave the "pulperia" its distinctive feature (a socializing function). "Pulperias" soon began to grow, to the point of becoming saloons where people gathered together to talk, drink, and dance. Then they became the place where people organized and even wrote petitions to the governors. Therefore, Lascaris said that "the history of the demographic expansion can only be told from the history of the development of "pulperias" (Lascaris, 1975, p.62). It is interesting to note how Lascaris pointed out the fact that Costa Ricans lived apart from the government. Now we see an example that points to the organization of the people from their own will and their own towns. It was a form of organization that was not imposed, but rather one that emerged spontaneously, where everybody knew each other. Perhaps this is the reason why Lascaris believes that Costa Rican history is to be told from the standpoint of the people, and not from that of the rulers.
f) The cities. Again, we come back to the issue of the city versus the rural areas. This is another crucial point in Lascaris' view: He says that in Costa Rica, any grouping of houses is called a city. The country and the population is so small, that people regard as cities what others might think of as towns. Even though San Jose has a considerable size, it is Lascaris' opinion that "es campesina" (it is still campesino, peseant-like). A particular phenomenon that he discusses is what some have called "urbanization of the countryside", a process that Lascaris thinks will take a long time to be a reality. He thinks, conversely, that what has happened is that the cities have grown still preserving the mentality and the ways of life of the people from the rural areas (campesinos). What we have discussed so far belongs to Lascaris' account of Costa Rica's historical development as it pertains to the conformation of the Costa Ricans' basic personality. I will now introduce a general view of his conception of the "coordinates of the Costa Rican". In this chapter, Lascaris deals with specific behavioral and what we might call "cognitive" traits of the Costa Ricans, as they are reflected in some popular themes and motives, such as the saying "A la Tica", the concept of the "Concho", and the notions of space and time.
a) "A la Tica". When something is to be done in the spheres of economics, politics, or when describing a behavior, Costa Ricans use the expression "that is to be done a la Tica", which roughly means "in the Costa Rican (Tica) way". This expression almost always attracts the attention of foreigners, and Lascaris was no exception. He interpreted its meaning as "preventing blood from becoming a river". In other words, Lascaris thinks that Costa Ricans avoid the extremes, and that they always try to get along with each
other. "A la Tica" means trying to get along with everybody, and for this reason one has to avoid taking an extreme position. For example, Lascaris mentions how Costa Rican politicians, even those who are Marxists, are in fact somewhat moderate. There is always "regateo", which means "bargaining", when it comes to politics and social life. For this reason, Lascaris asserts that Costa Rica does not belong with the rest of Latin America, where extremisms and totalitarian rule have been common. This point is extremely important, for several reasons: Costa Ricans, in general, believe that their country is some sort of island, that their way of life is distinct in Central and Latin America, and many other authors have pointed this out. Also, this Costa Rican way of life (A la Tica) that is reflected in a "superstructure" such as politics is a direct expression of its people's history (what we have discussed so far). Finally, this is a crucial point to link the "primary" social institutions to the "secondary" ones, as we saw in the section about theories of social personality.
b) El "Concho". "Concho" is a regional word that denotes the people from the countryside, peseants, or campesinos. Lascaris argues that Carlos Gagini, a Costa Rican author who wrote a dictionary of Costa Rican regionalisms, saw the word as despective in a sense. Conversely, Lascaris affirms that "concho" is a word that denotes an individual that is "...necessarily democratic. Totalitarianism and Caesarism are repugnant to them" (Lascaris, 1975, p.125). Referring to one of Costa Rica's most picturesque and well-known pieces of literature, Aquileo Echeverria's "Concherias", Lascaris says that this book is a key to understanding the "Concho's" personality. He then goes on to say that the "Concho" is "...introverted, always thinks twice, calculates, and bargains...he speaks like a character from Don Quixote...in my opinion, the Costa Rican is concho" (Lascaris, 1975, p.120).
This is still another crucial argument. In the previous quote, there is a summary of many of Lascaris' main theses. The same characteristics of being timid, individualistic, of not trusting everyone, bargaining, are seen in the popular saying of "A la Tica" in politics, and are, at the same time, the characteristics that he proposed for the "mountain people". Then he affirms that in Costa Rica the cities were born out of a few small towns where people gathered in the "Pulperias", organizing in their own way, and that this "Campesino" way of life is still present in the city. And now he is saying that all Costa Rican are "Conchos", that is, Costa Ricans still preserve those features characteristic of the early "mountain people", many of whom now live in the cities. Other authors that Lascaris mentions have also held the opinion that the first rulers of Costa Rica came right out of those "mountain" and "small town" people. In fact, Lascaris explicitly states that there is "Concheria" in Costa Rican politics. However, he says that some of them were truly "Conchos", or pure "Conchos", while others always tried to appear as a "Concho" in order to appeal to the common people. This takes us back to that "nostalgia", or popular motive about the "Concho's" way of life. For example, Lascaris particularly mentions the case of president Ricardo Jimenez, who said in 1919 that "Entre las ilusiones que he ido dejando "en los azares" del camino esta la de que los Gobiernos o Congresos sean la causa o siquiera la levadura de la transformacion progresiva de la sociedad. La proporcion: tal pais, tal Gobierno, es cierta. Pero la reciproca: tal Gobierno, tal pais, es falsa" (Lascaris, 1975, p.124). (Among the illusions that I have discarded is that governments or congresses are the cause or even the yeast of society's progressive transformation. The proportion: such country, such government is true. But the opposite: such government, such country, is false). Ricardo Jimenez was a president that Lascaris regards as a true "Concho". Note how Jimenez reasserts Lascaris' argument that the Costa Rican personality was shaped by the people themselves and not by the government. Also, this quote is used by Lascaris
not only to support this thesis, but also that "Conchos" (and therefore, all Costa Ricans, according to his argument) are democratic, and that they do not accept totalitarianism.
c) The notion of space. This is a simple, yet deep characteristic perhaps of every culture, and Lascaris analyzes it in a clever way. For example, Costa Ricans use "arriba" (up) to denote their home or village, and "abajo" (down) to refer to the town or city. In the same way, "para adentro" (in) refers to the forest or jungle, and "para afuera" (to go out) refers to going to the city. Lascaris readily links this notion of space to the "mountain people" mentality and the process of getting into the mountain. It is clear that people who live up in the mountains will refer to "going down" when talking about going to the town or city. In the same sense, "to go in" is to penetrate into the forest or the mountain. Also, directions are given taking certain well-known places as reference points. Still today, addresses are given using this same approach, and one can see that even in postcards and letters. Costa Rica does not have a standard system of street names and numbers, except for the cities' downtown. This is a direct reflection of the isolation and the "Campesino" way of life that is still present even in the city. I have witnessed how people resist changing addresses to standard forms of street name and number. If one asks anybody when walking around San Jose, that person will probably not know the street name or number, but he or she will readily give a detailed explanation of the exact location using reference points.
d) The notion of time. This is also a most interesting analysis of the Costa Rican culture. Since there is still a "Campesino" mentality, most Costa Ricans do not have an exact, detailed notion of time. This is true of everyday life, which is not so fast-paced like in great industrialized countries. For this reason, Lascaris says that Costa Ricans, in their short period of
independent life, have not yet developed what we might call a "historical conscience". Lascaris says that this conscience develops when there are marked eras in the history of a nation, with epidemics, wars, and other major changes. But in Costa Rica, these events have been few. Another interesting point is some popular sayings related to the notion of time. For example, saying "despues" (I will do it later), or "ahorita" (in just a second, but still later), and others such as "que pereza" (I have no desire to do it now). Lascaris attributes these to the individualism that has permeated Costa Rican life since its origins. That is the reason why, Lascaris believes, Costa Ricans cannot accept a fast-paced, imposed timing in their lives. Rather, everyone wants to do things at their own rhythm. Even though he thinks that Costa Ricans are conservative, Lascaris believes that they are open to change because of their lack of historical conscience. Yet people's attitudes are hard to change because of this individuality.
3. The conclusions. In the last chapter of his book, Lascaris deals with the "superstructures" of Costa Rica. He analyzes the political life and then he provides with a conclusion about the current Costa Rican way of life. In this section, it is of main importance to link the first two chapters about the historical development and the "coordinates" of the Costa Rican to the conclusions that he draws in terms of the "superstructures". Some subsections of this last chapter are of special interest:
a) The "Central American Switzerland". It is most interesting to foreigners that Costa Ricans compare themselves to this European country. A popular song concludes with this phrase, a fact that Lascaris notes. However, he believes that there is little in common between Switzerland and Costa Rica.
The only thing that they have in common, he says, is the lack of folklore, which in Switzerland has been substituted with gymnastics, and in Costa Rica with soccer. Lascaris points out that Costa Rica is a country that trades with more than a dozen countries and has signed a variety of treaties (perhaps suggesting an expression of that "A la Tica" attitude of conforming to everybody), while Switzerland has only "signed the Red Cross treaty". When it comes to economic and political development, Lascaris says that they have still less in common. However, he acknowledges the fact that Costa Rica has allowed women to vote and does not have an army, two characteristics that make Costa Rica unique compared to European countries. Therefore, Lascaris tried to resolve why this phrase came to being and why it is so popular. He concluded that maybe Costa Ricans tried to imitate Switzerland, although no one really knows anything about it and, unlike this European country, Costa Ricans do not have the will to become industrialized at all. This discussion is probably a corollary to the "mountain people" mentality, and as Lascaris says, a "Central American complex" (feeling less than other more developed, industrialized nations). However it may be, still Lascaris recognizes some characteristics that make Costa Ricans unique, that perhaps would make us think that Costa Ricans really do not have the need to compare themselves to others.
b) "Que pereza!". This is a common phrase among Costa Ricans, which in English means something like "I don't have the will to do it". Lascaris says that this phrase is very common not only in families, but also in the public sphere, such as work and politics. We discussed this when talking about the notion of time, where Lascaris made the point about Costa Ricans having their own pace of work. According to this view, Costa Ricans try to leave things for later, and for this reason Lascaris says that sometimes it is thought that Costa Ricans are lazy.
However, this phrase is another important point that Lascaris makes about how the national character has been influenced by its early development and how it is reflected in the country's superstructures. Lascaris notes that Costa Ricans are very hardworking. This is demonstrated by the early endeavor of getting into the mountains, the hard work of the peseants, the individuality that developed out of the high value placed on one's own work. Since Costa Rica, at the beginning of the century had so few inhabitants, the rulers knew everybody, Lascaris says, but later they had to develop a bureaucratic system that did not meet the "efficiency" and hard work of the general people. Therefore, the expression "que pereza" came about as a result of people being tired of the bureaucracy's inefficiency, and is, at the same time, an expression of Costa Ricans not wanting to do the things that rulers tell them to do. In the arena of politics, Costa Ricans dislike academic and sophisticated language, and for that reason they often like politicians who get away from that routine. The expression "que pereza", therefore, is not a reflection of Costa Ricans being lazy, but a true expression of their simplicity of nature. As an example, Lascaris cites an anecdote about Joaquin Garcia Monge, a renowned Costa Rican writer, who one day, after being asked how he was doing, answered: "Pasandola" (in English, something like "letting time pass by"). But Lascaris says that his example, a hard-working man and one of Costa Rica's most respected intellectuals, suggests that reflection of the Costa Rican unique and humble character. There is a quote from J. Vargas Coto, who wrote "...ni la presidencia de la Republica, vale lo que unas horas de la tarde en que el hombre pueda ver los celajes tranquilamente y descansar bajo su techo disfrutando de sosiego y sin muchas preocupaciones" (Lascaris, 1975, p.449). (...not even the presidency of the Republic is worth as much as some afternoon hours during which a man can passively contemplate the sky and then rest under his roof, enjoying tranquility and without much worries).
c) The seven capital sins of the Costa Rican. This is perhaps the most important section of Lascaris' book, for it summarizes, in the form of a satire, the basic Costa Rican personality characteristics. Lascaris discusses whether Costa Ricans exhibit behaviors that would violate each one of the "seven capital sins". I summarize this discussion as follows: 1- Pride (ostentation): Costa Ricans are not arrogant. "...but the sin of being arrogant, seriously, is impossible in Costa Rica" (Lascaris, 1975, p.451). 2- Greed: Costa Ricans are not greedy; however, they are (in Spanish) "agarrados", which means that they invest in their families and sometimes do not want to spend money, but that does not mean that they are truly greedy. 3- Lust: Lascaris just says that Costa Rica has had the highest rate of demographic expansion during the twenieth century in Latin America. 4- Anger: Costa Ricans are timid, pacifist, and they respect everybody else's life. 5- Gluttony: Lascaris says that this sin is unknown in all of the American continent. Costa Ricans like to eat, but always the same; they eat because they have to, not for really tasting the food. 6- Envy: Costa Ricans will make fun of each other and talk a lot, but they will never do any harm. 7- Laziness: Lascaris says that he already wrote a whole section on this topic, that Costa Ricans are hard-working if they are farmers, but they would do half the work if they are bureaucrats.
A special note should be made here about one of Costa Rica's most distinctive characteristics, which is present in all social classes and places. This is called "choteo", which Lascaris defines as a way of making fun of others, but always in a friendly way, a way of humorizing everyday life, and of which we even find expression in politics. "Choteo" is done everywhere, and across social classes. Politicians are made fun of in
this way. Lascaris mentions that many Costa Ricans, including politicians, feel that life would be most boresome without "choteo". This practice is associated with another one, for which a term has been coined, that is: "bajar el piso" (in English, something like "breaking the floor upon which you are standing, or taking it down, pulling it out so you fall"...very hard to translate...I have heard something like "pulling out the rug"). However, this term refers to a special way of making fun of or "unmasking" a politician. For example, when someone is doing something that others do not approve of, they do "bajar el piso" to that person. Or when they want to take advantage of another person, they also do it. These practices are an example of how a popular behavior extended itself into politics. Also, another example of how in Costa Rica, political life grew out of the people and was not totally imposed by strong rulers. Some other attitudes, such as considering everything a "luxury", are now expressed in governmental policies, such as taxing articles for being "luxurious". Lascaris criticizes this attitude, suggesting that, sometimes, that "village mentality" that we discussed can actually damage the country. Finally, coming back to "bajar el piso", Lascaris believes that the expression came from the times when people were hung, and in order to do this, the floor was slided out so the person would fall and die; however, he says that in Costa Rica, the expression means more like making everybody equal. For example, if someone is standing above all others, they "take out the floor", so the person falls and stays at everybody else's level. His interpretation comes from his belief that Costa Rica is a "peseant democracy" (Lascaris, 1975, p.463), and that people do not tolerate others that think they are worth more than everybody else. Again, we can relate this conclusion with his analysis of the "seven capital sins" (that Costa Ricans are not arrogant), and to the discussion about the absence of government and the formation of the "mountain people's" character. As a conclusion, a final quote from Lascaris: "Costa Rica es una democracia vivida, sin censura previa" (Lascaris, 1975, p.471). (Costa Rica is a lived democracy,
without previous censoring). He then concludes saying that the only exception is that Costa Ricans still ban some movies, with the excuse that "they are not apt for minors".
Conclusions. I would like to conclude with a discussion of the three aspects of Lascaris's book that I analyzed. Finally, I will add an overall conclusion. My own impressions as a Costa Rican citizen, I think, are already obvious throughout the paper; however, I will here openly discuss my personal opinion about the book.
The method. After reading the book and comparing its contents to what Lascaris said about his method, it is obvious that not only did he base his work on personal conversations and what we might call "informal interviews", but also that he follows a detailed and deep method in terms of analyzing a variety of information sources. It is true that he does not use a statistical or what some people might call a "scientific" approach, in the sense of the "hard sciences". However, I would call his approach an "interpretive" one. Lascaris shows how literature, folktales, songs, and language can be crucial sources of information about a nation and its people. For this reason, I believe that Lascaris is right when he says that perhaps many scientists will criticize him. Yet his study is still valuable, and it is so in the sense that others can read it and criticize it, as he himself says. A true scientific approach is one that can be falsified and criticized by others. Maybe his book is not one-hundred percent accurate, but it is there for others to see.
The contents. Even though the book deals with a variety of aspects such as popular foods, folktales, myths and legends, and others, I chose only some of the subsections that I deemed pertinent to the analysis of national character. As a characterization of the Costa Rican's social personality, I think this book accomplishes its goal (Remember that
Lascaris said that his goal was to characterize not one, but all Costa Ricans, and that he had to be a judge himself of which behaviors were common to all Costa Ricans). Especially important are the sections that deal with popular sayings that express much about the people's personality. Since Lascaris traces these back to their Spanish or native origins, these phrases are notorious (for example, "A la Tica", "Que pereza", and many others that I did not analyze here). Again, Lascaris brings the historical perspective, so his interpretations are not made in a void, but are rather presented in a context of past and present.
The conclusions. Sometimes scholars have criticized the notion that many historians had that Costa Rica was a peseant democracy, almost a paradise of equality during colonial times. However, Lascaris demonstrates that, even though there were actually disparities among people, Costa Rica would not have been the way it is now if its history had been otherwise. Consider other Latin American countries in which governments have been strong and totalitarian, where only a few have concentrated all the wealth, with virtually no middle class. These countries are now suffering many social problems that in Costa Rica are present, but not to those degrees. That is why Lascaris says that Costa Rica does not fit into the general coordinates of Latin America. Perhaps Lascaris' account is somewhat benevolent, and maybe that is the reason why most Costa Ricans agree with it. But if Costa Rica's history has been different, or if someone has to say something against this view, I think no one has ever contradicted Lascaris at all. Also, I think that his book is sufficiently balanced, and that he recognizes Costa Rica's negative characteristics as well, whenever he had to. Lascaris not only bases his view on his own interpretations, but he also uses a wide variety of quotes from Costa Rican historians, novelists, poets, journalists, and politicians.
General discussion. I think that "El Costarricense" is an excellent example of describing the national character from the standpoint of what Inkeles called "National character as culture theme". Lascaris expressly states that his approach will focus on everyday life, and for this reason, it does not deal with the "superstructures", such as the government and politics (Remember the discussion about Costa Rica's history being told from the people's history and not from the government's standpoint). This approach is also consistent with Margaret Mead view that national character has to be studied using a variety of methods and sources, and not limiting it to asking the same questions to everybody (for example, surveys). Lascaris, as we saw, used almost all of the sources that Mead suggested for the study of national character. It is also noteworthy that Lascaris analyzes some aspects of Costa Rica's superstructures always referring to his historical analysis of the conformation of the "mountain people" personality. This early account is the basis for his further interpretations of city life and bureaucracy in Costa Rica. This general approach assumes that incipient personality forms are carried through the years and later expressed in ways that remind us of those early days. This is in a general sense consistent with views such as Fromm's and Kardiner's, although Lascaris makes no attempt to analyze Costa Ricans at a deep psychological (or psychoanalytic) level. Going back to Fromm's view about the basic human needs in society, I think that it is Lascaris' opinion that Costa Rica has not yet reached that point where government comes before the individual. Therefore, Costa Rica's unique peaceful character and democratic sensitivity, which is a cause as well as a result of this situation (according to Lascaris also). So the question, "is it possible to come up with a Costa Rican basic personality", in my opinion, has an affirmative answer after reading this book. However, I should say that Lascaris deals mostly with the majority of Costa Ricans who lived in the Central Valley and perhaps he should have taken into account especially the black minority that lives on the Caribbean coast. Other authors have already written a book about the blacks
in Costa Rica. For the most part, however, Lascaris did an excellent job in characterizing the great majority of Costa Ricans. Taking into consideration that Costa Rica is a rather small country with a fairly homogeneous population in terms of race and ethnicity, I think that a characterization of a nation's social personality (in this case Costa Rica) is easier under such conditions. A characterization of a larger society, with many races, ethnic and religious groups, would require a great deal of skill on the part of the researchers, and the study will probably not be as complete and straightforward. Costa Rica's current economic situation is tense, though political turmoil has not yet been evident. While Lascaris wrote his book more that fifteen years ago, many of his descriptions are still applicable to Costa Rican society. It is my hope that Costa Ricans will continue to live under the same principles of freedom, peace, and democracy. It is true, however, that many people in the country live under severe conditions, and that poverty is growing every day. These principles of freedom and democracy that are preached by many would perhaps sound illusorious or hyppocritical to these individuals. For this reason, it is the duty of every Costa Rican citizen to spread these principles in order to better our conditions of life.
Bibliography.
Harris, M. (1983). Cultural anthropology. New York: Harper & Row. Honigmann, J.J. (1967). Personality in culture. New York: Harper & Row.
Inkeles, A. (1961). National character and modern political systems. In Hsu, F.L.K. (Ed.) Psychological anthropology: approaches to culture and personality. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Lascaris, C. (1975). El Costarricense. San Jose, Costa Rica: Editorial Universitaria Centroamericana.