analysis of the costa rican national character

7/28/2019 Analysis of the Costa Rican National Character

1/31

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 J une, 1992


2/31

To my friend and "colleague" Iigo Lejarza,

a true Spanish-Costa Rican, who has taught me

so much without maybe knowing it.


3/31

"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.


4/31

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 ahistory 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.


5/31

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


6/31

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.


7/31

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


8/31

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.


9/31

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


10/31

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


11/31

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.


12/31

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


13/31

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.


14/31

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


15/31

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.


16/31

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.


17/31

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.


18/31

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


19/31

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).


20/31

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


21/31

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


22/31

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.


23/31

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.


24/31

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 hard-

working. 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).


25/31

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


26/31

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,


27/31

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


28/31

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.


29/31

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


30/31

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.


31/31

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.

analysis of the costa rican national character

Documents