The power of
friendship
- Can friendship between ethnic groups reduce
prejudices in multi-ethnic Suriname?
Pernilla Östlund
Bachelor’s thesis Development Studies
Uppsala University, Department of Government May 2020
Supervisor: Hans Blomkvist Page count: 38 Word count: 12 642
i
Acknowledgments
I want to extend my gratitude to the students who participated in my interview - without you this study would not have been possible. A special thank you to Melanie Doeser, without whom the stay in Suriname would not only have been lonelier, but literarily lost in translation. I also want to thank Mariska Ten A Sang-van Der Meer, for guidance and support while there. Lastly, I want to thank my supervisor Hans Blomkvist at Uppsala University, who not only managed to ease my mind during this process, but whose guidance has been a great support and of high value in making this paper.
1
Table of Contests
ABBREVIATIONS ... 2
1. INTRODUCTION ... 3
1.2 PURPOSE AND AIM ... 4
2. HISTORICAL CONTEXT ... 5
2.2 CURRENT SITUATION ... 6
2.3 SURINAME’S ETHNIC GROUPS ... 7
3. LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 9
5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ... 13
5.2 CASE SELECTION ... 13 5.3 CHOICE OF METHOD ... 14 5.4 APPLICATION OF METHOD ... 15 5.5 MATERIAL ... 16 5.6 LIMITATIONS ... 16 6. RESULTS ANALYSIS ... 18
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ... 30
REFERENCES ... 33
2
Abbreviations
ADEKUS Anton De Kom Universiteit van Suriname
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SLA Surinamese Liberation Army
UCDP Uppsala Conflict Data Program
3
1. Introduction
Suriname, on the northeast corner of South America, is a multi-ethnic and multilingual country home to people with roots in Africa, Asia, Europe, and America (St-Hilaire, 2001: 998). The countries’ large ethnic diversity, where no single ethnic group enjoys absolute majority status, can be understood through Suriname’s history of both slave labor and contract workers being brought to the country by the Colonial Dutch.
Although Suriname has made progress since its colonial past, ethnic groups still face inequalities. Inequalities hurt economies, weaken social cohesion, and prevent people’s trust in institutions, thereby acting as a “bottleneck” that stands in the way of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UNDP, 2019: 1). Hence, it is well worth studying ways to reduce inequality, especially since it is itself one of the SDGs.
One of the three building blocks to reduce inequality mentioned in The World Social Report 2020 is the need to address prejudice and discrimination, as they drive inequality and constitute obstacles for equal opportunities. To end prejudice and discrimination, institutions must be reformed, but it also requires an influence of social norms and behavior (United Nations, 2020: 4, 14, 152).
One prevailing theory when studying prejudices is contact theory, a theory which can be applied to diverse social problems and is commonly employed when looking at how to reduce prejudices between ethnic groups. There are three larger strands when looking at what components of contact lead to reduced prejudice: knowledge, anxiety reduction, and empathy and perspective-taking. The first concerns
learning about the outgroup, the second a reduction of unease in contact situations and the third sympathizing with and being able to take the outgroups viewpoint (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008: 923).
There are limitations in previous research regarding the contact theory: Most empirical studies have been conducted in Western contexts, mainly in the United States, with a focus on dichotomous
relationships (Kanas, Scheepers and Sterkens, 2017: 103). Another limitation is the fact that the vast majority of studies have focused on the effect upon the powerful, non-stigmatized group in the interaction (Pettigrew, 2008: 189).
To contribute to understudied aspects of contact theory, this paper will focus on the perspective of less powerful groups in contrast to more powerful groups, in a non-western, multi-ethnic context. While also building on previous research, the focus of this paper when examining the effects of contact will be the aspects reduced anxiety and empathy and perspective-taking. The study will be a qualitative study, performed with university students, where it is assumed that ethnic groups have contact. There are private institutions for higher education in Suriname, however, the choice falls on students at the public university Anton De Kom Universiteit van Suriname (ADEKUS), since the focus of this study is deprived groups with limited resources.
4
To examine the effect of contact between ethnic groups, it is relevant to broaden the context where the theory has been applied, hence a multi-ethnic, non-western country such as Suriname is a relevant empirical case. Consequently, this study can contribute to a deeper understanding of the empirical case while at the same time contribute to continued research.
1.2 Purpose and aim
This paper seeks to analyze whether friendship between individuals is affecting the prevalence of
prejudices towards ethnic outgroups in Suriname. The argument being that friendships, through processes such as feelings of reduced anxiety in contact situations, as well as an increase in empathy and
perspective taking, in turn would lead to a reduction of prejudice towards outgroups. Thus, derived from the research literature on contact theory used in this essay, the following research question is posed: Is
friendship between individuals of different ethnic groups in Suriname a mechanism that reduces prejudices towards the ethnic out-groups? To capture what more recent research has encouraged new
studies to focus on, the question will be examined through the two processes mentioned above: 1) reduced anxiety, and 2) empathy and perspective taking.
To clarify, as this is a quantitative study, the objective is not to be able to generalize and hence answer this question for every individual in Suriname, or even for every student at ADEKUS; the aim of this paper is rather to answer the question for the sample group, which constitutes the empirical data for this study.
Suriname has a long history of inequalities which has resulted prejudices and to overcome these prejudices it is relevant to look at processes that are commonly used to explain reductions of prejudice. One well-established theory is that of contact theory, that argues that contact between groups, in
particular deeper contact such as friendships, tend to reduce prejudices towards outgroups. This theory is usually applied to ethnic groups, which will be done in this case as well. This paper will theoretically argue and empirically show, that contact in the form of friendship reduces prejudice towards ethnic outgroups. Worth noting is that prejudice will still be present, but as the theory states, contact leads to a
reduction in prejudice, it does not state that they completely disappear.
The choice of method for this study is in-depth interviews, which was chosen to complement earlier quantitative studies. While being a minor field study, due to Covid-19 the interviews themselves were conducted via video from Sweden after being evacuated from Suriname, in April and May 2020.
The paper is constructed in the following way: First, an empirical context is given, where the history of Suriname is shown to have an effect of prejudices still prevalent today. Suriname’s ethnic groups is also presented, together with common prejudices between the groups. Second, a literature review and a theoretical framework will be given, after which follows a presentation of methodology. Third, the empirical data will be presented together with a subsequent result analysis. Finally, a short summary is given with concluding remarks.
5
2. Historical context
Suriname, once known as Dutch Guiana, is situated on the northeast coast of South America. With its 163,820 square kilometers it is one of the smallest countries in the region, while at the same time one of the most ethnically diverse (BBC, 2018). Suriname has a population of only 609,569, which can be explained by the fact that more than 90 percent of the country consists of Amazonian rainforest. In effect, most of Suriname’s population live along the coast in urban areas, a majority in the capital Paramaribo, while only a few live in the interior rural areas (CIA, 2020). The country’s’ ethnic diversity can be understood through Suriname’s history of both slave labor and contract worker being brought to the country by the Dutch.
Suriname was a Dutch colony from 1667 until the country was declared independent in 1975. During the first centuries under Dutch rule, slaves where brought in from West Africa to work on the plantations of Suriname, primarily located along the country’s coastline. After the abolition of slavery in 1863, contract workers from India and Java were employed to work at the plantations instead. When the workers’ contracts expired, they had a choice between a ticket home, or a piece of land in Suriname. A majority of the workers stayed, and today Hindustani and Javanese make up a significant number of Suriname’s population (Landguiden, n.d.; St-Hilaire, 2001: 1006f).
At the time of its independence, Suriname was a parliamentary democracy, with political parties divided mainly along ethnic lines. However, due to a stagnating economy, unemployment and increased poverty and financial problems, discontent spread across the country and resulted in a military coup 1980, followed by the formation of a junta led by lieutenant colonel Dési Bouterse. A time of censorship and violence followed, culminating in the most notorious event with the murder of 15 opposition figures – journalists, lawyers, and trade union leaders – in 1982 (UCDPa, n.d.).
Although the junta was disbanded a couple of years later, discontent continued to grow with the stagnating economy, resulting in a revolt against the government by the rebel group SLA (Surinamese Liberation Army, commonly known as the Jungle Commando). The group consisted mainly of the ethnic group Maroons, who are descendants from slaves that escaped slavery and fled to the interior of
Suriname. The leader of the SLA, Brunswijk, demanded political and economic rights for Maroons as well as a reinstatement of democracy, together with free elections. However, to accomplish this the group used violent methods, such as attacking military posts and hit-and-run attacks against the army, in the end escalating to sniper attacks and attacks on towns and power lines (UCDPa, n.d.; UCDPb, n.d.).
SLA had significant support among Maroons, and Maroon villages suspected of aiding the rebels were attacked by government troops, resulting in up to 300 civilian casualties and thousands of villagers fleeing to the neighboring country French Guiana. In their raids, the army also killed women and children, and burned down their houses. During this time, Bouterse still commanded the armed forces (UCDPa, n.d.).
6
In the early 90s elections were held, and the new government signed an agreement with SLA, which settled the conflict. Later, Brunswijk turned to politics and became chairman of the political party General Liberation and Development Party (ABOP), a position he still holds today (UCDPa, n.d.; ABOP.sr, 2020). Bouterse also turned to politics again, and was elected to his second five-year term as president in 2015 (BBC, 2018).
2.2 Current situation
Suriname is classified as “Free” by Freedom House, with a score of 34/40 on political liberties, although civil liberties get a significantly lower score of 43/60. Suriname is considered a constitutional democracy with generally free and fair elections, but the country suffers from problems with corruption and lack an independent judiciary. Indigenous people, the Maroon population together with women are politically underrepresented (Freedom House, 2019).
Although Suriname’s constitution prohibits discrimination based on ethnicity, the Maroon and indigenous people living in the interior face inequalities with regards to education and employment. These communities lack protection of constitutional freedoms such as residence, since they are
vulnerable to displacement by unregulated logging and mining operations (Freedom House, 2019). The Maroon population that resides in the rural interior of Suriname also have higher rates of malnutrition and lower access to electricity, water, infrastructure, health care and sanitation compared to the rest of the country (UNDP, 2016: 127).
One consequence of a lack of education is that the Maroons have a lower proficiency in Dutch than other groups, which is problematic since it is the official language in Suriname, used both in public contexts and in schools (St-Hilaire, 2001: 1014). This, in turn, can affect both the ability to get employment, as well as the ability to receive higher education.
Several other languages are spoken in Suriname besides Dutch. The lingua franca is Sranan Tongo, a Creole language that is used by various ethnic groups in Suriname. Other languages spoken are English, Hindi and Javanese (Landguiden, n.d.; BBC, 2018). Language is a mark of class in Suriname, since general education is in Dutch and those not proficient in Dutch are seen as less educated. Unlike Dutch, Sranan Tongo has a history of low prestige in urban areas, and of being thought of as “speaking black”. From an interview study by Monique Menzo it is clear that the prestige of Sranan Tongo has improved, but is still connected to low education (St-Hilaire, 2001: 1014; Menzo, 2012: 26, 63f). Thus, language is a way to distinguish between different ethnic groups, which makes it a relevant in regard to this analysis on prejudice.
7
2.3 Suriname’s ethnic groups
As established, Suriname is a heterogeneous country, with over sevendifferent ethnic groups as follows:
Ethnic group Percent of the population
Hindustani (also called East Indians) 27,4 %
Maroons 21,7 %
Creole (usually of mixed European and African descent) 15,7 % Javanese 13,7 % Mixed 13,4 % Indigenous people 3,8 % Chinese 1,5 % Other 2,8 % (Landguiden, n.d.)
However, there are four different indigenous groups and six culturally and politically distinct tribes that together make up the Maroon community (Kambel, 2006: 11, 19; St-Hilaire, 2001: 1009). Though, for the purpose of this paper, indigenous people and the Maroon community will be regarded as one group respectively as a distinction within respective group will have no direct bearing on this analysis.
The largest ethnic group in Suriname today is descendants of the contract workers that came from East India, called Hindustani. They make up a little more than a quarter of Suriname’s population, and have in general been working with small scale farming and as industry workers after their work on the plantations (St-Hilaire, 2001: 1006).
Another large group are the Javanese, who continued to work in farming after their work on the plantations. Historically, the Javanese have been the most impoverished and least educated group of those living along the coastline. Like the Maroons, the Javanese did not have the same level of
proficiency in Dutch, implications of which are discussed above. As a majority of all Javanese moved to Paramaribo, their previous isolation from other ethnic groups broke and people started to get an
education (St-Hilaire, 2001: 1008f).
Descendants of slaves make up over a third of Suriname’s population and can be divided into two groups: the Maroons, whose forefathers fled the plantations to live in the interior of the country, and the Creoles, often of mixed descent, whose forefathers moved into the cities by the coast after the abolition of slavery. Creoles have in general enjoyed high levels of education and proficiency in Dutch compared to other ethnic groups, and often work in government service, in politics or in business (Landguiden, n.d.; St-Hilaire, 2001: 1004). In the last decades, Maroons have settled in and around Paramaribo, but they have still faced discrimination and the hardships mentioned above.
8
There are also descendants of the Chinese who came to Suriname after the abolition of slavery to work on the plantations. While the Chinese is a much smaller group than other Asian groups that came as contract workers, they have more influence and resources (Landguiden, n.d.).
It is relevant to consider how ethnic groups in Suriname are portrayed by other groups, as well as if there are certain prevailing prejudices, to better understand the context of this study. St-Hilaire (2001) has conducted a study on ethnicity in Suriname, where the author brought up just this. Even though the study is from 2001, a historic overview of prejudices in Surinamese society is still relevant to understand the hurdles that need to be overcome with regards to prejudices and as we will see, some of the
prejudices mentioned by St-Hilaire still exists today.
Creoles, considering themselves the original Surinamese, has tended to regard Asians as foreigners (St-Hilaire, 2001: 1005). The Javanese were looked down upon and called “lau-lau yampaneisi” – which means “stupid Javanese”. History plays a part in these prejudices: Since the Javanese came to work at the plantations after Creoles where freed from slavery, the Javanese where seen to accept “slave work” which the Creoles considered a justification of their social superiority (St-Hilaire, 2001: 1008). Maroons have been regarded by Creoles as “half-naked primitives”, and both lower-class Creoles as well as upper-class Creoles have tended to belittle them and make negative ethnic jokes about them as a group (St-Hilaire, 2001: 1010).
The Javanese, on the other hand, have considered the Creoles to be “loud, unruly and uncultured” while Hindustanis where considered “frugal, greedy and sly” (St-Hilaire, 2001: 1008).
Maroons, whose forefathers fled from the plantation to Suriname’s interior, have regarded people living in the city as untrustworthy, even long after their flight. They have also considered urban Creoles as “shamelessly decultured” (St-Hilaire, 2001: 1009f).
9
3. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
The relationship between contact and reduced prejudice is found within the literature of social
psychology. The basic concept of contact theory is that more knowledge about out-groups will reduce prejudice and generalization, which commonly are elements that could lead to conflict (Forbes, 1997: 7). While not the inventor of contact theory, psychology professor Gordon Allport, with his study “The Nature of Prejudice”, is responsible for systematizing and consolidating the research body in the subject. His systematizationhas inspired a vast research literature, and practically all discussion on the contact theory is based in Allport’s study, particularly his chapter on “The Effect of Contact”. It is in this chapter that Allport, based on his insights into and on prejudice, attempts to explain the possibilities of intergroup contact and how it affects our prejudices, resulting in his hypothesis on intergroup contact. (Forbes, 1997: 15).
“While some of this endless antagonism seems based upon a realistic conflict of interest, most of it, we suspect, is a product of the fears of the imagination. Yet imaginary fears can cause real
suffering.” (Allport, 1979: xv)
Already in the preface to his book, we get a sense of Allport ‘s ideas of prejudice: It is not something real, it is imaginary. To understand contact theory, one must start with the concept “prejudice", since this is the basis for Allport’s contact hypothesis. Allport’s point of departure in this is ethnic prejudice, which is made clear in the very first sentence of chapter 1: “They’re lazy brutes”, a white truck driver mutters upon seeing a group of idle natives, (Allport, 1979: 3).
Any author is a product of their time and Allport was active during the WWII and during
desegregation in the United States. The problem of prejudice in his book is therefore cast in the light of ethnicity, and focused on Protestant whites against blacks, Jews and Roman Catholics – i.e. those that were the target of discrimination during that time (Allport, 1979: xiv). For example, Allport comments on the United states Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 19541, but the book itself can also be seen as a reflection of the reasoning that went into the verdict (Allport, 1979: xiv). Allport discusses both general and more precise definitions of prejudice, but for the purposes of his study, he uses the specific term “negative ethnic prejudice”, which will be discussed below. The “negative” in the term can be defined as unfavorable prejudices against ethnic groups, as opposed to favorable prejudices that may also be the case (Allport, 1979: 6f).
1 The decision by the United States Supreme Court’s to declare segregation in public schools unconstitutional (See
10
Allport defined ethnicity as the characteristics of groups “that may be, in different proportions, physical, national, cultural, linguistic, religious, or ideological in character” (Allport, 1979: xviif), which still holds ground to this day. This is the definition I will use in this work.
Furthermore, Allport defines negative ethnic prejudice as “an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because he is a member of that group” (Allport, 1979: 9).
When talking about prejudices and intergroup contact hypothesis, two other important concepts are ingroup and outgroup. Simplified, the groups could be called “us” and “them”: Allport defines an ingroup as a group of individuals who all use the phrase “we” with the same essential meaning. The ingroup can be family, classmates, club members, members of a city/nation/state, and more (Allport, 1979: 31). It follows then, that every group outside of the ingroup is an outgroup in relation to the ingroup: Your family is an ingroup, while all other families are outgroups (Allport, 1979: 41f). However, the issue is not the existence of outgroups, but whether one’s loyalty to the ingroup entails hostility towards the outgroups. There are plenty of historical examples of the significance of creating a common enemy to reinforce cohesion in an ingroup2, but this is not a given.As in the example above, our own family constitutes an ingroup, but that does not necessitate that all other families are seen as enemies. From a psychological perspective though, our ingroups are primary and while the familiar is favored, and seen as inherently “good”, what is alien is seen as inferior and less “good”, even though it does not have to mean hostility against it (Allport, 1979: 29, 41f). This is one explanation of prejudice, where we perhaps are unaware of the psychological processes that makes us favor our own group.
Allport concludes that “Prejudice (…) may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals.” (Allport, 1979: 280). According to Allport, contact reduces prejudice through knowledge: Learning about the outgroup would itself reduce prejudices (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008: 922). However, Allport emphasizes that contact does not always result in a reduction in prejudice between groups – sometimes the result was quite the opposite: An exacerbation of prejudice. To explain the variations in the results of contact, he held that to reduce prejudice, contact must include the following four conditions:
1. Equal status in the situation: For the contact to effectively foster positive intergroup attitudes, both groups must perceive that they have equal status,
2. Common goals: When different groups work together as a team towards a common goal, it promotes positive intergroup attitudes,
2 See for example the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli in his “The Art of War”, and William James’ “The Moral Equivalent of War”.
11
3. Intergroup cooperation: Connected to the second condition, the achievement of common goals should be based on cooperation, not competition, and
4. Support of authorities, law, or custom: If contact is backed by authorities, contact can be based on societal norms and guidelines for how different groups should interact (Pettigrew & Tropp in Dovidio, Glick & Rudman, 2005: 264ff).
Many advances have been made since Allport’s book was released and this work has advanced the hypothesis into an established theory (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew, 1998).
Past research has found inconsistencies in their results:While a various amount of research
demonstrates a general support for contact theory, others have reached conflicting conclusions. Some find that contact needs to be under optimal conditions for it to reduce prejudices, and may even risk increase prejudices if done in unfavorable conditions. Others argue that intergroup contact in general reduce prejudice at an individual level, but does not extend to group level, which would mean that the reduction of prejudice does not extend to the entire outgroup but only for certain individuals. By extension, this would mean that contact theory could not solve group conflict, which would be a significant limitation to the theory (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 752).
Pettigrew and Tropp’s extensive meta-analysis, with 515 studies and over a quarter of a million participants spanning over 38 nations, shed some light over the above-mentioned inconsistencies within contact theory research. First, the results from the analysis clearly show that intergroup contact generally reduces intergroup prejudice. This is also true when controlling for participant selection bias. Second, while those samples that incorporated Allport’s four conditions for reducing prejudice showed a
significantly higher mean effect than samples that did not, they were not essential for a positive outcome. Consequently, Allport’s conditions should be seen as facilitators, not a requirement, for a positive
outcome. However, the authors found support for Allport’s claim that the conditions should be seen as interdependent of each other, and best facilitate a positive effect of contact when working together. Third, the analysis show that prejudice reduction extends beyond the individual to the outgroup as a whole, as well as outgroups who were not part of the contact. In contrast to reducing the applicability of the theory, this shows how it can be utilized in practice as a means of enhancing intergroup relations (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 766).
Now that we have established that intergroup contact typically reduces prejudice, it is relevant to examine the process that leads to the prejudice reduction: How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Which mechanism are at play? Pettigrew and Tropp have carried out another meta-analysis to investigate the process of reducing prejudice, focusing on the most frequently tested, which is 1) Knowledge, 2) Anxiety, and 3) Empathy and perspective-taking (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008: 923).
12
Knowledge as a mechanism is based on Allport’s original ideas mentioned above, the concept being that intergroup contact enables learning about an outgroup, and this new knowledge would in its turn lead to a reduction of prejudice. Later work has focused on other mediators between contact and prejudice, such as anxiety. Here, the notion is that intergroup contact would lead to a reduction of the feeling of threat and anxiety.Yet additional research has examined empathy and perspective-taking, where contact, in particular close contact such as friendship, facilitates the ability to take the perspective of the outgroup, as well as empathize with the other groups’ troubles (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008: 923).
The result of the study showed that all three mediators had a negative correlation to prejudice. However, knowledge showed the least effect on prejudice, while anxiety proved to be a stronger mediator and empathy and perspective-taking proved to have the strongest effect of all. Worth noting though, is that anxiety had a larger number of samples, hence has a larger significance level than empathy and perspective-taking (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008: 927).
Pettigrew and Tropp conclude that the result of their meta-analysis indicates that the key mediators are emotional factors, that is, anxiety reduction and empathy, rather than cognitive ones (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008: 929).
The contact hypothesis proposed by Allport has evolved significantly over the years, and besides now being a fully-fledged theory, the literature has moved from testing if the theory is correct, to accepting the theory and instead focusing on the process of contact theory and how contact reduces prejudice. I will stay in this vein: The focus of my study will be on the process of how contact leads to reduced prejudice. The two mediators anxiety and empathy and perspective-taking will be used as indicators of whether friendship leads to reduced prejudice, and form the basis of my analysis of the empirical data. I will use a different definition of prejudice than Allport suggested, as a more minimalist definition of prejudice is more widely accepted in the field, that is, prejudice as “an overall negative attitude toward a group” (Eagly & Diekman in Dovidio, Glick & Rudman, 2005: 20). Since little research has been done in a non-western context, there is a need for additional research outside of this. Therefore, a study in a context like the Surinamese, will contribute to the research field.
13
5. Research Design and Methods
Earlier research has concluded that prejudices can be reduced by intergroup contact, especially in favorable circumstances. Results indicate that the greatest effect is achieved by emotional processes, such as anxiety reduction and an increase in empathy and perspective-taking (see earlier chapter “Literature Review and Theoretical Framework”).The purpose of this study is to investigate whether friendships between university students at ADEKUS seem to lead to a reduction of prejudices and more accepting attitudes towards ethnic outgroups. To answer the research question, in-depth interview was conducted as part of a Minor Field Study (MFS). Unfortunately, this study was affected by the outbreak of COVID-19, and due to evacuation from Suriname before interviews could be held, they were held from Sweden via video. The implications of this will be discussed further below. The following sections will illustrate the reasoning behind the choice of case study, together with the selection of, as well as application of, method. Additionally, the material for the study will be presented with a following analysis and lastly, there will be a discussion of the limitations of the study.
5.2 Case selection
Since previous research have already established that anxiety reduction as well as empathy and perspective-taking lead to reduced prejudices, this study will, besides applying the theory in a new context, heed Pettigrew’s’ call to focus on better understanding these processes (2008: 190).
I have chosen to interview university students that have friends from other ethnic groups than their own. As was mentioned in the introduction, ADEKUS was chosen as it is the state university, and a part of this study is to capture the perspective of ethnic groups with limited resources. It is also regarded as more representative for Suriname as a whole, as I was told during the field study that most students cannot afford private institutions.
University is seen as a likely environment for students to develop friendships with different people of ethnicities, since it is a context where students socialize and take classes together (Levin, van Laar & Sidanius, 2003: 3). There are two main reasons to focus on friendship: firstly, cross-group friendships can be expected to encompass most of Allport’s four conditions for positive contact (Pettigrew, 2008: 188), secondly, friendship is seen to encompass and facilitate empathy and perspective-taking (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008: 923). Friendship is also relevant to study as more casual contacts do not change attitudes as strongly (Pettigrew, 2008: 189), also, contact through friendship have been seen to extend to not only the outgroup, but other outgroups as well (Pettigrew, 2008: 188). I have also included anxiety as a mediator, since this study focuses on stigmatized groups, which can arguably have reason to feel anxious in contact with more powerful groups.
As already mentioned, most studies of contact theory have been conducted in western contexts. Besides the fact that this is a limitation of the applicability of the theory in other contexts, it is relevant to
14
examine the theory’s applicability for other reasons as well. Considering Allport’s four conditions for optimal conditions for contact, is does not seem farfetched to assume that countries that are in a state of post-conflict, post-colonialism, or that suffers from inequalities and discrimination, might show a different result from contact. It is therefore relevant to examine the theory in a context that encompass some of these situations. Neither does is seem unlikely that the theory might produce different results in a multi-ethnic environment rather than in dichotomous one, which either might be an advantage or a disadvantage for the theory. Hence, I argue that it is relevant in several aspects to examine the theory in a context such as Suriname.
The sample group of this study consists of students at ADEKUS. To contribute to the cumulatively of contact theory, whose dominant focus has been on attitudes of majority groups, or the most powerful group (Pettigrew, 2008: 189), an effort was made to find students from the ethnic group Maroons: who is not in minority, but can be considered a stigmatized group. This study will perhaps then be able to
provide further insights into the role of perceived discrimination in regard to the effect of contact (Kanas, Scheepers & Sterkens, 2015: 103).
The interviews conducted in this study were, as mentioned above, conducted via video, and in English, which is considered widely spoken in Suriname (CIA, 2020). When doing case studies such as this, a method of strategic selection should be employed to be able to do an analytic generalization (Esaiasson et al, 2017: 160f). This case can be understood as a critical case, where the sample group of students constitute a most-likely case. The sample is considered a most-likely case since earlier studies of the effect of contact have yielded stronger results among university students than among adults
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 764). This, together with the fact that the sample contains students with confirmed friendships, makes it a most-likely case. A most-likely case implicate that if the theoretical framework, in this case of contact between students leading to decreased prejudices, does not hold true for the chosen sample group, it most likely will not hold true for those with no friends from other ethnic groups.
5.3 Choice of method
The main goal of this paper is to highlight the students perception of the effect of their friendships on prejudice, which represent this study’s empirical data, and with this also complement previous research. To accomplish this in-depth respondent interviews be conducted, which is used when the object of study is the respondents’ themselves, their thoughts, and perceptions (Esaiasson et al, 2017: 236). There are a couple of reasons to choose this method: a large quantity of previous research has been quantitative studies (see Kanas, Scheepers and Sterkens 2017; Levin, van Laar & Sidanius: 2003; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006: 753), furthermore this study aims to capture nuances in the effect of contact depending on whether the respondents have experienced discrimination, but also aims at contributing to a deeper understanding of the process that reduce prejudice.
15
With a starting point in the literature, an interview guide has been compiled for the respondent
interviews. Inspiration has predominantly been taken from St-Hilaire’s (2001) research on ethnicity in Suriname, Levin, van Laar and Sidanius’ (2003) study on the effect of outgroup friendships on ethnic attitudes in college and finally from an interview guide regarding democracy and social capital distributed by Hans Blomkvist at Uppsala University. Another interview was conducted with Jack Menke, professor of social sciences at ADEKUS, although without a structured interview guide. The interview guide for the respondent interviews can be found in Appendix 1.
5.4 Application of method
In keeping with the aim of the paper, the key empirical data consists of interviews conducted via video from Sweden, with students enrolled at ADEKUS. While the interviews were originally going to be conducted in Suriname, the outbreak of COVID-19 led to the necessity of an alternative solution, to still be able to complete the study. All interviews were conducted in English, as it is widely spoken in
Suriname and hence can be assumed to be spoken by university students. In the end, four interviews were conducted, three video interviews and one written interview. This will constitute the key empirical data in this study.
Preceding all interviews, the respondents were informed that my study was purely for academic purposes, to put them at ease. The respondents were ensured that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions since the object of the study was their honest thoughts and opinions. This was done to try and create a safe environment, and reduce social desirability. The respondents were also ensured complete anonymity, to further encourage honest replies.
No changes have been made to the interview guide after the interviews, however, changes were made after arriving in Suriname to better capture the context. Some of the examples in the interview guide are thereby inspired by what was told by the people I was fortunate to meet before being evacuated from Suriname. The students I interviewed was at their second, third and fourth year at ADEKUS, which can be seen as giving them time to develop friendships with other students.
Since the interviews had to be conducted from Sweden, creative solutions had to be found to find students to interview, that additionally studied at ADEKUS. This was done via Facebook, as ADEKUS have their own page where I searched for respondents among those that liked or commented on
ADEKUS updates. To ensure that I found students, I visited everyone’s Facebook page with the hope that they had filled in where they studied/worked. Those that could be confirmed as students were
contacted via Facebook Messenger and asked if they would consider participating in a video interview. It was challenging, as most did not answer me. Others agreed to do an interview, but never got back to me. However, I was fortunate to find a couple that willingly agreed to be interviewed, and by that I could also find other respondents via snowball sampling, that is, the respondents were asked if they knew someone
16
that would be interested in participating in the study (Esaiasson et al. 2017: 190f). Two out of the three respondents were given the interview guide beforehand as per their request.
5.5 Material
As has already been established, the empirical data use in this study consists of four interviews. To aid in the evaluation of whether contact reduce prejudice the two mediators 1) anxiety, and 2) empathy and perspective-taking will be used as themes with corresponding indicators in the analyses of the empirical data. The indicators are presented in the interview guide.
Since his is a minor field study, and I spent some time in Suriname before being evacuated, I will also use my own observations in my analysis, as well as what was told to be by others than the respondents in the interviews.
The interviews demonstrate both positive and negative correlations between friendship and reduced prejudices, this varies in the sample depending on the ethnic group the respondents identified as. One can also perceive a difference between self-perceived level of prejudice and the displayed level of prejudice.
5.6 Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. One being that the sample is smaller than what was anticipated, due to difficulties already mentioned with finding interview subjects. The solution to the difficulties of finding respondents were the use of snowball sampling, which comes with its own set of risks: the sample may only consist of a subset of an already limited selection (Esaiasson et al, 2017: 191). Out of the four respondents, only one interview was attained by snowball sampling, so this effect should be minimal. Another limitation is the fact that the interviews was conducted via video, which made it more difficult to control the situation surrounding the interview. However, it is possible that doing the interview from home made the respondents feel more comfortable as it is a less formal setting.
While it is acknowledged that English is widely spoken in Suriname, it was neither the respondents nor my first language, hence nuances can be lost in both questions, as well as answers.
When conducting interviews, it is important to be aware of the social desirability – where respondents may answer what they perceive as socially acceptable. As it in general is seen as more socially
acceptable to not be prejudice this may have influenced the respondents answers. To attempt to partially control for this, the respondents were assured that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions posed, as well as ensuring their anonymity. After spending time in Suriname, my perception is that ethnicity, as well as what may differ between ethnic groups were not seen as socially unacceptable to talk about. Rather, it was talked about openly, even in front of people of the ethnicity under enquiry.
Another issue with similar implications is that of “interviewer effects” – this effect may influence respondents to adjust their answers in line with what they believe the interviewer wishes to hear. This could be due to characteristics of the interviewer such as sex, age, and ethnicity (Esaiasson et al, 2017:
17
243). Taking Suriname’s history into consideration, as well as the inequalities in Surinamese society, being a European may very well have influenced the respondents answers. This was not something that I perceived during the interviews, perhaps because of what was mentioned above with regards to ethnicity not being a taboo subject. However, it does not exclude the possibility that I simply did not notice the “interviewer effect”.
Lastly, a limitation of the study is selection-bias – which would mean that already unprejudiced people may be those that seek contact, and by extension friendship, with other groups. This would mean that the causal link would be the opposite than what is assumed in this study, that is, lower prejudice leads to contact, instead of contact leading to lower prejudices. It is out of the scope of this study to control for selection-bias, it is also not the focus of the study since the aim is to investigate an already established process. However, previous research has considered the issue of selection-bias, concluding that the path from contact to prejudice is in general stronger than the path from prejudice to contact (Pettigrew, 2008: 188).
18
6. Results analysis
In the following section the results of the field study will be presented. I have chosen to present the results together with the analysis, to give the reader a better comprehension of the findings of the study. As a starting point to this analysis, every respondent where asked whether or not they have friends from other ethnic groups, as well as amongst which groups. All of the respondents confirmed that they have friends from other ethnicities, and most of them had friends from all, or more or less all, of the different ethnicities. Based on the empirical data, I will provide an answer to the research question with the guidance of the two themes: Reduced anxiety and empathy and perspective-taking. To simplify the reading, I will henceforth use the term empathy as encompassing both empathy and perspective-taking. The path model proposed, taken from Pettigrew & Tropp’s (2008) examination of how contact reduce prejudice, is the point of departure for the analysis:
The path model should be understood in the following way: Intergroup contact has a negative correlation to anxiety, that is, contact reduces anxiety. Anxiety on the other hand, has a positive correlation to prejudice, hence, reduced anxiety leads to reduced prejudice. Empathy and perspective-taking on the other hand, are positively correlated to intergroup contact, that is, more contacts leads to more empathy. Empathy and perspective-taking are negatively correlated to prejudice, hence, an increase in empathy leads to lower levels of prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008: 927f).
Since this model is based on earlier research predominantly conducted in a western context, a question for this analysis is whether this path model is applicable to a context such as Suriname, and if there seems to be differing results depending on which ethnic group the respondents identify as. As Suriname has a checkered past, both anxiety and empathy are interesting mediators to examine as such a past can have an effect on the ability to feel empathy, as well as effecting how anxious one feels around certain groups.
Before reviewing the answered from the respondents, it is worth revisiting the definition of prejudice and to reiterate the research question. The definition of prejudice that I will use is “an overall negative attitude toward a group” (Eagly & Diekman in Dovidio, Glick & Rudman, 2005: 20) and the question
Intergroup contact Anxiety Empathy/ Perspective-taking Prejudice e
19
this study aims to answer is: Is friendship between individuals of different ethnic groups in Suriname a mechanism that reduces prejudices towards the ethnic out-groups?
It can be assumed that the amount of anxiety experienced in contact situations may differ between ethnic groups in a context such as Suriname, since the country has a history of discrimination.
Experiences of anxiety in contact situations can be dependent on large status differences, or the anticipation of negative consequences for oneself during contact (Voci & Hewstone: 2003: 38). Therefore, the first step in the examination of feelings of anxiety was to try and determine if there are (still) prejudices against certain ethnic groups in Surinamese society, in an attempt to capture whether the respondents view of stigmatized groups were the same as in literature on the subject. This would also reveal if the respondents I talked to were a part of the stigmatized group, and hence could be expected to have a different point of departure in the following examination of contact’s effect.
All respondents answered affirmative when asked if there are prejudices in Surinamese society - while one answered that she thought there existed prejudices against pretty much all different ethnic groups, two pointed out both the Maroons and Hindustanis as those most subject to prejudices. As was indicated by one respondent however, the level of negativity towards the two groups is obvious:
“People generalize a lot and maybe more negatively around the Maroon people, maybe, or the black people, but we all have our things that we say, Indians like money, Black people like
to steal. But it is based on nothing.” (Paula, Mixed, 3rd year)
To further capture eventual impact on the respondents’ anxiety, I asked whether the respondents, or someone they know, have experienced being treated differently or discriminated against due to their ethnicity. This question was posed as previous experiences of differing treatment or discrimination can be an indicator that people would expect negative consequences from contact. Three of the respondents have had experiences like this, one had experienced it herself, while the other two had a friend who had experienced it. Both the respondent subject to being treated differently, as well as the friend whose ethnicity was given, were Maroons.
Sometimes (…) At work, it was at a conference, and it was for high educated and, they thought I wasn’t.”
(Emma, Maroon, 2nd year) When asked who treats her differently, she answered:
“The light skinned Surinamese.” (Emma, Maroon, 2nd year)
20
This will provide a base for the analysis going forward, to examine whether or not the respondents show differing levels of anxiety in contact with other ethnicities. To examine whether respondents felt anxious in contact situations, one of the questions asked was whether the respondents felt more comfortable socializing with or within their own (ethnic) group. Three of the respondents did not feel any different socializing with groups of other ethnicities, one of the respondents also hinted as to why she was comfortable with every group:
“No, I feel the same way with everyone out there. It dates back from when I was a younger child, so its normal now, it’s just a piece of me.”
(Paula, Mixed, 3rd year)
Paula explained that her parents where from two different ethnicities, Black and Hindustani, and that she had grown up with people of different ethnicities since she started school. Furthermore, she has at one point or another in her life had friends from all different ethnic groups. She explains that all this taken together has influenced her, and she feels comfortable with everyone. This could be an example of selection bias – that is, Paula’s lack of prejudice is what has encouraged her contact with other ethnic groups. However, recurrent in her narrative, is that the contact she had with different ethnic groups from a young age has influenced her, which would mean that the causal effect holds – it still goes from contact to reduced prejudice instead of the other way around. One of the respondents gave a differing answer regarding whether she was more comfortable socializing with her own ethnic group, while not being uncomfortable, she expressed that it depends on (how) the group (treats her):
“It depends on the group. Sometimes if you’re in a minority and the people don’t kind of interact you in the group, then you do kind of, you feel a type of (indistinguishable) … But if the group is cool with
everything, it just happens.” (Susan, Maroon, 2nd year)
This can be connected to what was mentioned above, that feelings of anxiety can come from the expectation of how others will treat you, as oppose to how you feel towards them (Voci & Hewstone: 2003: 38). Worth noting however, is that the respondent who had experienced differential treatment claimed that she did not mind socializing will other groups, while Susan actually told of receiving
preferential treatment due to her ethnicity rather than being discriminated against. Here, there might have been a linguistic confusion mentioned in the limitations, as the answer by Emma, who had experienced differential treatment, answered in more general terms as oppose to the answers from the others, as exemplified by the quote from Paula above. Emma might still prefer socializing with her own group:
21
“I don’t mind communicating with other ethnic groups” (Emma, Maroon, 2nd year)
Another indicator used to measure anxiety was whether or not the respondents would feel anxious being the only one of their ethnicity in a group. Three of the respondents asserted that they would not feel anxious in this situation, including the respondent who had experienced being treated differently due to her ethnicity. The fourth respondent explained that she might feel anxious:
“In the beginning, and but if they are comfortable with me, then I will just let them in, be just normal with them.”
(Susan, Maroon, 2nd year)
This seems to correlate with Susan’s answer to the question above, and while the respondent had not experienced discrimination, it can be assumed from her answers that she is aware that her ethnicity influences how others act towards her. In general, these results are consistent with those of Levin, van Laar and Sidanius who found that students with friends from ethnic outgroups displayed reduced anxiety when being around people of different ethnicities (2003: 85). While Susan’s answers differ to some amount, it seems that she is less anxious being around other ethnicities, than aware that they might treat her differently.
Lastly, to examine levels of anxiety, respondents were asked whether or not they found other ethnic groups’ culture and custom as ‘odd’, or if they found that they could understand them. While most of the respondents expressed that other’s culture and customs can seem odd, at the same time all respondents voiced that after learning about the different customs, they respected them and got more comfortable:
“If I don’t understand people’s culture you find it odd, but by learning and wanting to understand you get comfortable and you learn to respect it.”
(Susan, Maroon, 4th year)
“So, like I said, it’s the customs that are a big difference. In a way, we know the things about the other ethnic group, but when you become friends, and you become invested, and they take you on their journey,
then it has a effect, a shocking effect. But when you have seen it a few times, or experienced the things a few times, then it’s OK.”
22
This could be seen as an indicator of Allport’s original idea, that knowledge reduces prejudice. However, I interpret the answers as the respondents learning through, and together with, their friends, which would point more to the emotional factors rather than knowledge.
To gauge the respondents empathy and ability to take other groups’ perspective, the first question asked was what their ethnic group had in common with other ethnic groups. Here, two respondents answered similarly, that in the end everyone is a human being with the same wants and needs:
“Yeah, we’re all human, we just have different cultures.” (Susan, Maroon, 4th year)
“Everything is similar. We trying to make it a life. Yes, live peacefully around each other, eat, drink, have a great time, that’s all it is.”
(Paula, Mixed, 3rd year)
This would indicate that their empathy would not differ depending on ethnic groups, as they first and foremost see everyone as human beings. However, we shall complement these answers with the others to see if this is a correct assumption. Another respondent answered slightly different:
“I can’t tell because I was raised neutral. But I noticed, each group puts their own people first.” (Gabriella, Mixed, 2nd year)
This respondent cannot see any likeness between ethnic groups, as she claims she does not know enough about other ethnic groups. This can be seen as differing from the two other respondents, as their
philosophy seems to be that “we’re all human”. While Gabriella claims not to see color or ethnicity, this perception will be challenged in some of her answers, as we will see further on. This answer, however, is a first clue to measuring her empathy and perspective-taking.
Continuing the exploration of empathy, the respondents were asked if they thought that they could understand the struggles or worries of other ethnic groups. As has been established, some ethnicities face more inequalities and struggles than others, and here the idea was to examine whether the respondents could feel sympathetic to this, or rather felt that it could be blamed on the group. Every respondent expressed that they could feel empathy for struggling ethnic groups, and here two different perspectives where revealed:
23
“I do. One part because I know people from other groups, and also because we have had the history of how each groups have struggles in the past, up until this point (…)”
(Paula, Mixed, 3rd year)
“Yes, definitely. You learn, you get to know them better by their stories and their experience.” (Susan, Maroon, 4th year)
When asked where Paula had learned about the history of other ethnic groups, she explained that both school and different exhibits demonstrate this. To clarify, I asked if her understanding was based both on her friendships with other ethnic groups, as well as society in the form of schools and exhibits, which she confirmed. This clarification was done both to see if it where friendship that had influenced the
respondent, but also to capture one of Allport’s conditions, that is, support from society. Susan, on the other hand, seems to base her sympathy solely on her friends’ experiences.
Another measure of sympathy was whether or not the respondents felt that, despite having different cultures and religions, they were basically the same as other ethnic groups, as well as if they thought that they had the same values or interests as other ethnic groups. The first question rendered answers in two different directions, exemplified by all respondents:
“Yes, I believe that we are all the same just a little different. Example basically the same God but different names.”
(Gabriella, Mixed, 2nd year)
“Yes, we’re basically the same, if you take away the ethnicity and the religion, we’re the same people.” (Paula, Mixed, 3rd year)
“No, there is a difference, there’s definitely a difference (…) Culture, the culture is one of them, we have different cultures, all ethnic groups have their own culture.”
(Susan, Maroon, 4th year)
“No, it’s different. It depends on the values.” (Emma, Maroon, 2nd year)
The differing answers might be connected to the fact that two of the respondents are of mixed descent, and spoke of not being raised a certain way, while Emma and Susan can be expected to have a stronger connection to their Maroon culture. An example of this might be derived from the fact that both
24
respondents of mixed descent spoke only Dutch at home, while Emma and Susan of Maroon descent spoke both Dutch and Sranan-Tongo at home; Susan also mentioned speaking Saramakan, which is the language of one of the Maroon tribes.
Two questions posed aimed specifically at capturing either empathy, or to detect underlying prejudices. The respondents were asked whether they could empathize will ethnic groups that had difficulty finding a job, or if this in part could be blamed on the group. They were also given an example of different negative attributes, such as some ethnicities being decultured or uneducated, and asked if this were true, and whether or not it could be blamed on the group. While all the respondents acknowledged that there were differences between ethnic groups such as the negative attributes that was exemplified, two of the respondents attributed this to society:
“It’s true that it’s hard to find work, for some ethnic groups, to find jobs. Only because of the color of their skin. [Regarding whether there are differences] Yes, a lot. [Can the difference be blamed on the
group?] No, it comes from the people that are defining them.” (Emma, Maroon, 2nd year)
[Can the difference be blamed on the group?] “Partly, but I guess if the government did their best to educate each group and... Include them. If the government include them (…) educate them, I
think that could change.” (Susan, Maroon, 4th year)
One respondent gave her own examples of negative traits attributed to ethnic groups, and seemed to think that most of the blame lied with the groups:
[Regarding the prevalence of differences] “Yes!!! Indian people speak bad Dutch hahah it’s really funny. Creole people prefer their own language, but the Creole people are also called the lazy folk in my
country and they are also less educated while Indian people seem to the biggest group in schools.” (Gabriella, Mixed, 2nd year)
“Yes. Our mother language is Dutch so you need to speak it correctly. And you can’t be lazy and expect everything to come easy to you. And the reason why my country is less developed, it’s because A LOT of
people are not educated. They can’t even understand what bad things our president is doing to our country.”
25
It is somewhat difficult to gauge whether Gabriella herself views people this way, or if she simply gives examples of what society thinks (this was a written interview provided in an e-mail so no follow up questions could be asked). Regardless, her answer can be perceived as prejudiced, as she seems to think that certain ethnic groups lack education, and that this in turn can be blamed on the group and their laziness rather than the lack of access to education (as was established is the case with Suriname’s interior). Notions such as these has been given in the literature as examples of how modern prejudices still exist, even though practices such as racial segregation and discrimination may be rejected. An example of such a modern prejudice would be that white people ascribe black people’s problems pf finding a job to them being lazy, instead of job discrimination (Eagly & Diekman in Dovidio, Glick, & Rudman, 2005: 21).
The examination above focused on how friendship has informed the respondents’ feelings of anxiety, or reduction thereof, as well as their empathy, and perspective-taking. While the answers above give us a hint of whether friendship has led to reduced prejudices, which is our main question, and a more
accepting attitude towards ethnic outgroups, some questions where aimed at only examining prejudices. One of the questions asked was whether most people were honest, as well as if members of the
respondent’s ethnic group was considered more trustworthy than others. Regarding whether her ethnic group was more trustworthy than other, one respondent stated:
“ I disagree with that, it’s not the ethnicity that matters, it’s the person it’s how the person is, the morals of the person, that’s gonna decide if the person is trustworthy or anything.”
(Paula, Mixed, 3rd year)
Susan, however, disagreed with the statement that most people are basically honest, but also disagreed that her own ethnicity where more trustworthy than others. This can probably be attributed to the economic situation in the country, rather than ethnicity, as another respondent put it:
[Regarding whether most people are basically honest] “Disagree: the economic situation in my country is so BAD at the moment, that people will take everything they can, if they really need it. But there are
always some good Samaritans.” (Gabriella, Mixed, 2nd year)
One person disagreed that most people are basically honest, and that her own ethnic group are more trustworthy than others. This was also the respondent who have been treated differently due to her
26
indicator that contact has a different effect on stigmatized groups, which was one of the aims for this paper to investigate.
Supporting this indication are the answers shown in the next question, where all different ethnicities in Suriname were listed and I asked whether or not the respondent could trust all, fairly many or no one belonging to each respective group. Although three of the respondents chose different levels of trust, their answer did not differentiate according to ethnic group. However, Emma answered that some ethnic groups could not be trusted at all, while others could be trusted “A little bit” or “Neutral”.
Continuing to explore whether or not the respondents have prejudices, they were asked whether or not they feel safer in a neighborhood where their ethnicity was in majority, and how they would feel if someone from another ethnicity moved in next door. Three of the respondents did not think that neighborhoods in Paramaribo are divided according to ethnicity, one also clarified that:
“I feel safe everywhere, I don’t have problems with that, I don’t. If you react on it, you’ll get an answer, but I just go about my thing.”
(Paula, Mixed, 3rd year)
One respondent stated that there are some ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods, but she lived in a “neutral neighborhood”:
“(T)hough in my country, there are a lot of ethnic neighborhoods. Especially ones where the Creole people live.”
(Gabriella, Mixed, 2nd year)
Regardless, none of the respondents expressed an issue with getting a neighbor from another ethnicity. The last indicator of prejudice was whether or not the respondents would have an issue with someone in their family marrying outside of their ethnicity, and whether or not they themselves could imagine marrying someone from another ethnicity. Based on a majority of the answers, it seems that love prevails, and that ethnicity is not decisive:
“I would be as happy as I would if they married someone from the same ethnic group, as long as they’re happy.”
(Susan, Maroon, 4th year)
“I would not have a care in the world. I would be happy. I love it when people mix.” (Gabriella, Mixed, 2nd year)
27
One of the respondents answered slightly differently. While she did not express any concerns if someone in her family would marry someone from another ethnicity, even when asked about the ethnicities she expressed as not trusting at all, when asked if she could marry someone from a different ethnicity, she expressed a preference towards her own:
“It doesn’t matter, but I prefer black men. [When asked why] Because I feel more associated with them.” (Emma, Maroon, 2nd year)
Considering that Emma has experienced being treated differently, and perceive her ethnicity as being discriminated against, rather than being an indicator of prejudice, this might be an example of what Levin, van Laar and Sidanius showed in their study, where in particular Black students who perceived more discrimination on campus tended to have more ingroup friends, which was explained by the fact that those who face a “negative racial climate” seek out people from their ingroup for support, and to protect their psychological well-being (2003: 89).
Finally, the respondents were asked whether they consider themselves (to be) prejudice, or if they felt that they could empathize with other groups. If the respondents expressed empathy rather than prejudice, I also asked whether or not they thought this could be attributed to their having friends from other ethnic groups, to capture the respondents own perceptions:
“I can understand them, yes, I do. [When asked if this could be attributed to her friendships] Yes, yes, that’s the reason why, because I can tell that from kindergarten and now I am in that environment (…) It’s
the environment in which I grew up in, has changed, how I think of it. I did go to a school, were it the same ethnic group, and I had been in a class with the same ethnic group, I wouldn’t thought like this, I
wouldn’t think like this. You have to broaden and open your mind and I’m glad I had that experience.” (Paula, Mixed, 3rd year)
Paula does not consider herself to be prejudice, which is in line with her answers throughout the
interview. She attributes this once again to having friends, but also her school and the environment that she grew up in, which, as mentioned above, can be connected to Allport’s condition of societal support. Whether or not it is her friends, her school, or the environment she grew up in, this seems to point to the fact that her contact with all different ethnicities is what has given her these values. Another respondent also attributed her empathy with other groups to her outgroup friendships:
28
“I can empathize with other people from other ethnic groups. [When asked if this could be attributed to her friendships] Yes, that’s why.”
(Emma, Maroon, 2nd year)
While Emma does not consider herself to be prejudice, she has shown some signs of prejudice during the interview, such as thinking that certain ethnic groups cannot be trusted. This could be ascribed to her ethnic groups’ position in society, and what she has experienced because of this. This is relevant, as it reinforces what previous literature has highlighted – there is a need to focus on contact’s effect on minorities and stigmatized groups, to examine whether contact has a different outcome for those that are discriminated against.
Susan also showed some signs of prejudice, when expressing that some of the prejudices in society could be blamed on the group, as well as claiming that the negative attributes ascribed to certain
ethnicities in the interview could in part be blamed on the group. While not explicitly saying that she has experiences of being treated differently when asked directly, like Emma, Susan indicates in more than one answer that people from other groups may act differently or uncomfortably around her. This enforces what was argued above, that being in a stigmatized group might affect how well contact reduces
prejudices. Susan seems self-aware, as this is how she expressed herself when asked if she was prejudice or emphatic:
“I can understand, but sometimes you can be prejudice too, like I said. But I do understand.” (Susan, Maroon, 4th year)
Gabriella, who made clear throughout the interview that she does not see differences such as ethnicity or color, answers that:
“I can understand. But we all are humans and humans have opinions. It’s really a natural thing.” (Gabriella, Mixed, 2nd year)
While arguing that she is not prejudiced, Gabriella has showed signs of differentiating between groups, together with a tendency to blame this on the group, as evident in the quotes above.
As argued above, this relates to what was called “modern prejudice” where the group rather than society is blamed for, in this case, the group being uneducated. However, Gabriella also made statements that contradicts her being prejudice:
29
“I LOVE to socialize with ANYONE. Not because I’m mixed but because I don’t have a feeling of being superior or that some ethnicities are better than others (…) No because when I’m in a group, I don’t see
color, I don’t see ethnicities, I see human beings. We’re all the same. Literally.” (Gabriella, Mixed, 2nd year)
All in all, all respondents, except from Paula, showed some kind of examples of prejudice in their answers. The implications of this will be further discussed in the summary and conclusion.
