THE TRIBAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SURINAME SOCIETY
I could only come to this analysis after working 20+ years with tribal communities in Asia, USA and various countries in South America. Now that I have been living abroad for 5 years, I see society from afar and periodically return to Suriname to test the hypothesis that our society currently functions as a large tribe.
This paper might be a bit confrontational, but as a Surinamer, I wrote down my research findings as a way for others to reflect and subsequently, contribute to a more promising future for Suriname. I hope that you, as the reader, will help me assess the Suriname society and find new ways how we can promote the positive characteristics of our society and let go of those characteristics that are less useful.
Please read this paper as a work in process as it has been put together in 1.5 years with insights from colleagues, friends and family. Citing this paper if you reproduce it or build upon the presented ideas, is greatly appreciated.
The Portrait of Suriname
With descendants from India, Africa, Indonesia, Europe, and Indigenous peoples, Suriname has a cultural diversity unmatched by any other country in South America. A conglomerate of approximately 600.000 peoples, Suriname is bound to maintain peace among its citizens through a process of tolerance and balance.
Suriname has also been characterized as the black duckling in South America and the Caribbean with its European-oriented administrative and legal system, Caribbean-like cultural values and expression, and the country physically lies within the South American continent without sharing any of the Spanish conquistador history. A dominant orientation is absent.
Parallel to these rather static portraits, Suriname has been developing its own identity, one that is unique and representative to the expression of the various cultures after achieving independence in 1975. In this decolonizing process, the country is developing new models for development by learning from mistakes and successes of others.
However you look at Suriname, it is a society with unique characteristics. I have found 10 tribal characteristics which are evident in various parts of society, and these are discussed below.
Characteristic 1: Collectivity
According to cultural scientist Geert Hofstede and his colleagues[1], “collectivity pertains to societies in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout the people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty”. Suriname possesses many different groups where individual members strongly adhere to collective values rather than presenting themselves as unique individuals with their own preferences and ideas.
Belonging to a group has substantial benefits. Group members promote their own customary rules, standards and practices and at the same time, praise their own members while alienating others with gossip and complaints.
For example, when Cindy publicly speaks out against actions taken by her established group, most likely she will be labeled by her group as aggressive, weird or just plain non-compliant. Cindy’s behavior will be secretly discussed with all other group members to gain a common understanding of the problem and how to handle it to keep up the group’s collective values. Cindy’s challenge to the group’s values – obedience, respect for tradition – is a punishable act in Suriname society.
Characteristic 2: Low Hierarchy
When looking at the whole of society, the different groups are operating in a horizontal arrangement of power. Each group is constantly thriving to get a better societal position with the general understanding that the elevation of one group can only occur when others are lifted simultaneously. When one group acquires too much power, the other groups will attack this injustice by applying the general rule of coexistence: “if I can’t have it, neither can you”. Popularly known as crab mentality, this concept represents the various groups as crabs in a bucket where one wants to be on top while crawling on the others.
The low hierarchy between groups pushes each citizen to navigate through society with tact and patience. Once confronted with an unknown person, a Surinamer will explore the situation first, usually by asking a popular question: who is your father and who is your mother? Although often categorized as a joke, this exploratory question gives a better understanding of two crucial pieces of information that anyone who engages with someone else wants to know: status and power of the group to which the other person belongs.
Characteristic 3: Negative Identity
Social identity is a person’s sense of who they are based on their role in society[2]. Generally, the people in Suriname have a negative identity about themselves which means that they tend to increase their own self-esteem by constantly making an “us versus them” comparison. For example, when Surinamers meet people from abroad, they like to explain their actions by saying
“this is how we do it here, you don’t understand” or “it just works differently here”.
This negative perception is also reinforced by the relatively low exposure of Surinamers to other countries and cultures.
Surinamers categorize themselves as special and enhance their self-image, often as a compensation to a (hidden) inferior feeling. Other evidence for this inferior feeling can be found in their easy satisfaction with new things brought from outside, a phenomenon which is comparable with the “beads and mirrors” given to remotely living tribes during colonization. Sometimes, Surinamers’ inferior feeling is expressed when they are confronted with countrymen/women who have moved abroad. Someone who lives abroad, and visits Suriname can easily be called a “know it all”, with the potential consequence of him/her being alienated from the ”Suriname tribe”.
Characteristic 4: Culture of Being
Suriname makes up a “culture of being” which means that the citizens believe that having a good relationship with others is the most important goal of their existence[3]. Surinamers like pursuing a good time with family members, co-workers or friends, thereby emphasizing the important values such as peace, harmony and caretaking. Values related to work and accomplishments are less important. Such values are being expressed in more developed nations from Europe and in North America, which are both adhering to a “culture of doing”.
As a being-culture, Surinamers prefer to identify themselves with the role they have in upholding a shared value such as caretaking of others. For example, John is an engineer with a 20-people business. John’s character as a good person who provides loans to his employees would be categorized more important than his profession as an engineer. John’s profession would only be mentioned if it reinforces his action towards the shared value of caretaking, for example, if John also helps with building houses for his employees.
Characteristic 5: Femininity
Feminine characteristics are expressed in the softness of dealing with everyday issues. Like other feminine societies, Surinamers promote emotional ways of discussing different topics which is very well noticed in the way politicians hold speeches in parliament, how journalists write articles in the newspaper or just how citizens complain about everyday issues using the expressive lingua franca Sranan Tongo. Emotions are best expressed through storytelling, a soft and indirect way of conversation compared to a direct and assertive way of expressing opinions, which is how more rational-oriented societies communicate.
In feminine societies[4], solutions to problems can only be sought in a non-painful and organic manner. Solutions are preferably chosen when there is no risk for tumult, and this means to sufficiently consult a large number of groups. Sometimes, implementing a solution can be even postponed because it is better to maintain the status quo, for example, a Government decision make take several years. This balancing act is necessary for retaining Suriname’s peaceful existence.
Characteristic 6: Discourse
In a small society like Suriname, the discourse plays a more important role than actual facts. The discourse represents the most important storylines in Suriname and is often a perspective of the group that publishes it. Discourses come and go, and from my research I noticed that the discourse with the most powerful-citizen-support stays active the longest e.g. the discourse about corruption and exchange rate was dominant during the 2020 elections because the majority of Surinamers kept it alive.
Discourses are often linked to the success or wrongdoing of a person or a group. Once someone is negatively discussed in a discourse and this discourse has limited public support, the person is likely to lose face in society. For example, Lucy has been associated with a corruption case in the company where she works as a manager. Lucy may be discussed in the newspaper, in social media or as part of juicy gossip in the different groups. The drawback of this practice is that Lucy has no way of restoring her face, even if the facts are in her favor. She can only reinstate her standing with the release of a new personal success-story, for example as a sportswoman or philanthropist. The result of this blacklisting is that conflicts are needlessly created, and currently society embeds countless of such unresolved conflicts which emerge at times when it is least expected.
Characteristic 7: Conflict Management
In my research, I have found that when 6 or more Surinamers come together in a work setting, at least 2 are related, know each other somehow or have something in common like a mutual friend or experience. With such short social connections, face-saving and reputation management have always been the most important strategy for one to survive. Consequently, Surinamers tend to negotiate in a manner that aims at keeping face and relationships intact[5]. For example, when Jim negotiates with Albert, the outcome of the negotiation is centered on upholding the relationship between them rather than Jim only profiting for himself.
In case there is a dispute, Surinamers like to either avoid it or go in hiding. In either way, the communication between the conflicting parties stops, and each of them starts creating their own story.
For example, Rudi is in conflict with John over an issue, and then Rudi withdraws and starts spreading his own version of the conflict to mutual friends, knowing that John will also hear it. Direct confrontation between Rudi and John is not a common practice.
Another preferred strategy for managing conflict is to form a coalition, for example, John mobilizes others to support him by protesting together. Surinamers also like to suddenly change the rules of negotiation when it does not work in their favor, a practice that is seen when the labor unions are in conflict with the Government.
Characteristic 8: Past Orientation
Societies with a past orientation tend to value traditional ways of doing things. Suriname focusses a lot on the past and this fits the definition of a society with a past orientation[6]. Think about how past experiences shape Surinamers their motivations, inspirations, substance and direction, for example, how they like to emphasize certain past events as being “perfect”. Surinamers are largely uncomfortable with change[7] and like the way things were in the good-old times. A life-time job at a stable company is still the preferred way of going through life.
It is a very big task for Surinamers to look into the future. Plans about the future exist on paper but in practice, they are rarely followed e.g. the multiyear development plan. Another example is that discussions about the future, usually end up in a list of activities (what needs to be done) and sometimes time is brought in (what needs to be done by when). But the “why” and “how” questions are always last to be answered and unfortunately, less important in the planning process, resulting in incomplete plans that hamper the further development of the country.
Characteristic 9: Traditional Decision-making
Surinamers seldom take decisions purely based on rationalism (knowledge and facts). There is always some kind of “feel factor” involved[8]. Decision-making is more like an art, for which one takes into account the balance between the different groups in society. There is physical evidence all around Suriname of this type of balanced decision making – look at the designation of names on streets, statues, bridges, and buildings to satisfy the different groups.
Other evidence of traditional decision making is that people prefer to go back to events from the past. Instead of seeing the situation as a novelty and assess it objectively, Surinamers like to find solutions by scanning what has worked in the past. The danger of this past-oriented practice is that people can become paralyzed when there is a situation they have never experienced before. Another danger is that society becomes apprehensive to innovative and creative ideas because decisions are centered on the past.
Characteristic 10: Leadership
Leaders are mostly chosen based on the expressive values, such as the ritual, ceremony, story, or culture. These expressive cultural elements are creating meaning to Surinamers, and this meaning seems more important than the actual results of what leaders produce. The so-called “symbolic” leadership enables leaders to be a manager of the culture that bind the followers. In contrast to leaders in rational societies who rely on structure and goals, leaders in Suriname like to highlight events and processes to keep intact the cultural bound between people.
Symbolic leaders are found everywhere in Suriname: in politics, in business and in many civil society organizations. They are often charismatic and master in linking ideology, beauty and meaning[9]. Similar to conventional tribal settings, the leader sets the policies and rules with some close advisors, usually without adhering to any kind of managerial authority. This type of leader is seen as either good or bad, because the followers are either attracted to the leader’s cultural expression or not.
[1] Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G.J. and Minkow, M. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. 3rd Ed. New York: Mc Graw Hill (pp.92).
[2] Tjafel, H. and Turner, J. 1979. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. New York: Oxford University Press.
[3] Kluckhorn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson.
[4] Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
[5] Bonta, B. 2001. Conflict Resolution among Peaceful Societies: The Culture of Peacefulness. In Chew, P. The Conflict and Culture Readers. New York: new York University Press.
[6] Ibid Hofstede, 2001.
[7] Ibid Hofstede at al. 2010.
[8] Inglehart, R. and Baker, W. 2000. Modernization, Cultural Change and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review 65, 19-51.
[9] Bolman, L, and Deal, T. 2003. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Source|
