iii. Martin Wickramasinghe, and his emphasis on a version of Buddhism humanism that was fundamental to most of his writings, his comparison of that humanism to that of western writers like Dostoevsky.
iv. Sarachchandra's undeniable role of giving birth to a tradition of modern Sinhala Drama, based on the then tradition then extant.
v. Amarasekara, who was hungry to find a new tradition of poetry based on the extant tradition of over a millennia, the refining of a suitable language for same and as a political theorist, in the last 30 plus years.
vi. A Conclusion, in which how these four cultural intellectuals figure against modern thinkers and the criticisms as they have expounded. He then proceeds to pitch these four against modern critics, and point out what he sees as shortcomings of the latter group too.
I welcome readers to read this essay, which serves as a summary of the book for several reasons. Since this is a non-fiction, the matter of spoilers, I think can safely be ignored. In the event that a reader decides to read this book, this summary serves as an introduction, although the main reason for me to take time to write this too, so that I can benefit from it on a second or third reading as the case maybe. If others too benefit from it ( as some of my blog essays seems to suggest ), I'd be happier for my efforts.
[ Aside, I recently read the essay that Liyanage Amarakeerthi wrote as an appreciation of Siri Gunasinha, to the Colombo Telegraph. I have no contention of anything that Amarakeerthi states in praise of Gunasinha - in fact am certain that they are well founded. I don't even have a contention when Amarakeerthi drops a hint that WD was boastful at times. But when he calls WD a "labourer in the trade of thought" ( චින්තන කර්මාන්තයේ කම්කරුවෙකි ), I was shocked. Amarakeerthi has referred this book in his collection of essays, titled Sithivili Sithijaya ( සිතිවිලි සිතිජය), at least for his essay on Munidasa Cumaratunga - but then again Amarakeerthi's book came out in 2019, whereas the above snide was made in 2015. The inference here being, that it can safely be assumed that Amarakeerthi is aware how thoroughly WD has used the views of a host of modern critics in this most complete book, at least now. Personally, am at a loss as to how Amarakeerthi could call out such names ( a politically incorrect one, no doubt), if he had read this book from cover to cover. ]
My Rating : *****
Publisher - Visidunu (2005)
=============================
The Summary on the book begins here:
The Author starts be dedicating an appreciable discussion on what he means by tradition, with a reference to many renowned social critics - Walter Benjamin, Terry Eagleton etc. He proceeds towards the classification of tradition. He elaborates on seven categories;
Transcendentalists - the tradition which believed that true knowledge can only be obtained by faculties of mind that transcends sensory experience. It is usually the anti-traditionalists like Benjamin and Foucault who had depended on that type, to analyse their philosophy.
Creative Assimilationists - One of the focal thinkers of this trend as per WD, T.S. Eliot believed in creative assimilation of tradition.On the one hand he cautions about hanging on to old tradition, while stressing that a tradition can be inherited by only a conscious effort. I think the dictum that Eliot went by was, 'a tradition without intelligence is not worth having'. Hans-Georg Gadamer is the other scholar that WD brings in to the discussion. As per him, tradition is the space that an interpreter already occupies. As per Gadamer's idea of tradition, it centers upon a specific historical tradition and stresses that prejudices and situatedness are what facilitates an interpretation.
Marxists - WD starts out by saying that while there is some ambivalence with the Marxist thinking about tradition, he quotes extensively from a book by Raymond Williams to explain the Marxist position. Williams states that under Marxism, it has been regarded a superstructure, inert, and as part of the surviving past.Williams points out that the segment of culture which are open for incorporation practically, and intentionally are not fully appreciated.
Inventionists - WD explores this category with the help of the concept that, traditions are not necessarily handed down, passed on from generation to generation, but are inventions in response to current needs. He cites the work of Hobsbawm and Ranger (The Invention of Tradition), and even presents a real life case with regards Nama identity of Namaqualand, in South Africa.
Counter-Traditionalists, are usually a means of replacing one set of writers with another. In recent times feminists and various ethnic minorities have insisted on the need to fashion counter-traditions, so as to expose the hegemonic power of the mainstream tradition.
Non-linearists insist that it is important to understand the complex temporality involved in tradition. The Present moment is given a central space, in contrast to it being considered a fleeting moment
Part two of the introduction discusses the role of Ananda Coomarswamy in some detail, as someone who WD categorises as a transcendentalist. It appears, that for all his western education, he had what could be considered a nostalgic notion about tradition. To quote WD:
"His attraction to tradition went hand in hand with a strong antipathy to modernization and industrialization. He saw modernization as a negative force that sapped the vitality of traditional arts and crafts and the social order. One discerns, in his corpus of writings certain nostalgia for the medieval period." (page 28)
As such, for Coomaraswamy, tradition was an unchanging and universal truth. WD, goes to the level of using the term "dogmatic rigidity" to describe his stance, towards the arts of the medieval period. Critics have expressed that it too carried a modernistic approach overall. His biographer Roger Lipsey states ( as quoted by WD);
"because it permits a thoroughgoing interest in every mode of traditional thought but requires no particular adherence to any one, the idea of a perennial philosophy or metaphysic is characteristically modern" ( page 30 )WD concludes this section discussing the weaknesses in the approach of Coomaraswamy, whom WD characterizes as an essentialist. An essentialist view point of tradition contravenes with that of contemporary analysts, who hold that culture is characterized by plurality, instability and change. Ashis Nandy contrasts the views of Tagore against that of Coomaraswamy, the former who creatively used modernity with tradition.
Ediriweera Sarachchandra (ES) is being discussed here based on the central role he played towards the birth of the modern Sinhala drama. WD emphasizes how ES never wavered from his stance of identifying Sinhalese culture with the classical Indian tradition. However he assimilated modern western criticism, with that of ancient Indian theorists. WD quotes Dr. Thiru Kandiah who found fault with Tamil drama which was stuck on an unchanging tradition, as against the rapid headway made by Sinhala drama, ever since Maname.
WD next explores why there never was a sophisticated Sinhala drama tradition. He shows ample proof that Sinhala writers were aware of Sanskrit dramatic works and that some kind of folk-drama for popular entertainment existed, as well as the existence of music, dancing and even puppetry. The lack of literary drama in Sinhalese was attributed to the fact that India lacked such drama in their vernaculars, and the fact that Brahmanism didn't have adequate an influence in Sri Lanka to initiate such a stream. What ES did in fact do was, to connect with the nadagam tradition, a more simple localised popular stream influenced by Sanskrit drama, and through that to more richer and complete sanskrit drama tradition. ES strictly believed that we should include Ceylon to the greater tradition of India. WD says:
"...Sarachchandra has continuously reiterated the necessity for Sri Lanka to drop its constrictingly xenophobic stance in cultural matters and to identify herself with the mainstream of Indian culture."
(page 97)
At the time that Maname hit the theater the local Sinhalese theater has hit a low, as the then drama of naturalized dialogue with sardonic humour was not catching on among the masses. The deficiencies of the naturalistic plays as well as the mood in 1950's of a revival for local culture, certainly was fertile ground for Maname to become popular, WD notes.
The most important message this essay conveys is an impression about the amount of work and effort that Sarachchandra has put in, to find out the path that he thought is the correct one for Sinhala drama to take. Having failed to win over the local crowds with naturalistic drama, his studying of drama in India, China and Japan inspired him to explore the that style. To quote WD;
"...Sarachchandra pointed out that there was a distinctly oriental concept of drama, as evidenced by the traditional theatres of India, Japa, China and so on, that differed from the naturalistic Western plays and which were stylized, in which song, music, mime played a crucial role. "(pages 102-103)There is a very important section on the history of the Nurthi in Ceylon, on how the visit by the Elphistone Dramatic company, a Parsi theatrical company, in 1880, made an impact on the theater going public. John de Silva continued the path followed by dramatists who were influenced by the Nurthi, but tried to bring in elements of the literate Sanskrit drama into it, albeit with very limited success.
WD touches on the aspect of dialogue between the East and the West , which ES believed would result in bringing out the best of both worlds. However WD doesn't mention the precise period of ES life, in which he had these ideas. What he does mention is that in his rather early scholarly book, "Buddhist Psychology of Perception", he "sought to juxtapose certain Buddhist concepts with some of the formations of modern psychology, not in the spirit of containing one in the frame work of the other, but rather in an attempt to instigate a dialogue between them." (page 108)
Martin Wickramasinghe (MW): He subtitles the essay on MW, Tradition and Humanism, illustrating how MW, set his reading of western literature, especially Russian, its critical evaluation as well as works of Darwin etc., against his background of Buddhist peasantry. Focusing on his literary criticism, WD states that MW used the tradition of Buddhism humanism as a yardstick, in evaluating literary works, whether classical or modern. WD, then spends some time illustrating how rigorous MW's criticism was on Sinhala classics. In particular, his comparison of the Jathaka story against the Russian novel, sounds like "a must read", and it was with dismay that I realised that I didn't have this work, at the time of writing this. However, MW was a firm critic of such works like හෙවනැල්ල (Gunasinha ) and යළි උපන්නෙමි (Amarasekara ). In this regard, Sarachchandra and Wickramasinghe didn't see eye to eye.
Making reference to a speech delivered by MW, back in 1971, WD points out that MW held the idea that,
"...language and tradition are indissolubly linked, a point that Gadamer has made emphatically, is a running theme in Wickramasinghe's writings." (page 82)
In the same essay MW, appears to have considered Buddhist thinking similar to early Greek philosophy, which encouraged a critical outlook. MW's fundamental premise was that this non-elitist strain in Buddhism had an effect of making folk-culture carry the ethos of Buddhism. That MW, aimed at making Buddhist culture a vital component in modern life is not hard to imagine. He wanted to make it a part of the social imaginary. WD goes on to explain a little about the concept of Taylor, in the process making us aware of yet another thinker, whose work we should be aware of.
Munidasa Cumaratunga (MC): Discussing MC, WD says that MC,
"was unafraid to articulate his views and deeply held convictions courageously and forcefully, often generating debate and controversy, which in the long run, turned out to be helpful in advancing the causes he championed." ( page 39)
He goes on to prove the notion that MC was a traditionalist is incorrect, and quotes extensively to prove it. How he showcased that Thotagamuwe Rahula was a plagiarist, when others held him as a great point, citing Kavyashekaraya is a case point. MC's views on Sidat Sangarayawa in Sidat Sangara Vivaranaya proves just how rational his thinking was.
"Sidat Sangarava is old, it was written by an eminent person; we learned our grammar from it. Some seem to think that to point out deficiencies in it is an act of betrayal. For those who believe that Sidat Sangarava is faultless, the last word on the science of grammar could find this interpretation unpalatable." (page 41)
WD details, how MC attempted to fashion a design for the Sinhala language based on its structure, and not on the kind of grammars that was created for other languages. Presented too are some words which were his creations - e.g. රජය (rajaya) , කමිටුව (kamituwa), පාපැදිය (papadhiya).
MC's response to Geiger's Sinhala Grammar, is another important contribution of his, and it stems from the vision he had for Sinhala, based on which he had criticized Sidath Sangarawa previously. WD makes an important observation here, which warrants quoting:
"The notion of 'maturity' articulated by Kant can be of great value in this regard (i.e. to invoke intellectual support from western philosophers for MC's way of thinking ). By maturity he referred to the capacity to depend on one's own rationality than being swayed by the authority of someone outside. Interestingly, Michael Foucault regarded this Kantian notion of maturity as being important for his own investigations." ( page 45)
WD coins the term linguisticality to explain how MC's saw the connection between tradition and linguistic identity. This is in terms of the ideas that is spread across MC's various works, and WD insists that this philosophy of language was articulated through them, but never as a separate treatise. Explaining further on this idea of linguisticality, WD explains the notion that language impacts on personal identity as well as collective identity. WD explains this clealy in page 47. Linguistic discipline is another important dimension of linguisticality.
"It was his belief that the transgression of laws of a language was a mark of absence of culture"
To complete the characteristics of linguisticality, WD shows that it was essentially connected with the idea of tradition and identity. WD then introduces us to the concept of speech community, briefly (page 50). Yet, those who are born to a speech community can has the capacity rise above the dictates of that environment.
WD then points out how, MC's probing mind saw that there is no necessity for prepositions in Sinhala, and hence only nouns, verbs and particles are needed as types of words.MC had further demonstrated that Sinhala didn't possess a special verb form, which denoted the future tense.
The second part of the essay is largely dedicated to MC's seminal work, පියසමර, which WD identifies as one of the finest poems written in the 20th century. WD further identifies that the idea of melancholia is new to Sinhala poetry, and hence the modernity of the poem. He further identifies that although it is an appreciation of his father, in reality it is about the poet and his memories. As is WD's custom, he relates the thoughts of many a modern critic and thinker, when deconstructing the poem. He uses the concept of significant other and generalised other ( George Herbert Mead ), behavioral environment ( Irwing Hallowell ), Davis and Starn's observations on memory and Freud's differentiation of melancholia from mourning, to name a few. WD identifies the confessional nature of the poem, a modern trait.
"It can be said that a confessional literary work constitutes a willed attempt on the part of an individual to describe his character to a community of listeners (readers), who would understand his or her situation with sympathy and discernment." ( page 57)Identifying the absence of an Oedipus conflict, WD makes the point that there are other useful frameworks that can interpret filial relationships.
WD's only criticism of the poem is the use of a stilted and artificial language, which he contributes to the loss of emotional power to, and the non-reception of its deserved critical attention.Reading this deconstruction of the poem, I was pressed to another reading of පියසමර - I read it about 15 years back, and am sure I'd be able to glean more out of it now. But time, and an ever mounting TBR list may not see me getting down to it anytime soon.
Gunadasa Amarasekara (GA): He subtitles the essay, "Poetry, Tradition and Social Truth", and starts by such a vivid exploration of the poems of GA, that the moment I kept this book aside, upon reading the part on poetry, I picked up bhaavageetha ( භාවගීත ) and reminded myself on just how good a collection it was. Published when GA was just 26, it even then attempted react against the shallow experiences of the Colombo School, and the then, newly introduced free verse. It had the vigor of folk poetry, and metrical while still afresh. WD says further;
" To my mind, what is perhaps most noteworthy about this collection of poems is the way in which he recaptures childhood experiences and curves of emotion with great vividness." (page 114)
WD then praises his third collection, Amal Biso ( අමල් බිසෝ) in which he communicated a modern sensibility and structure, while using a diverse folk poetry for a base.Commenting on his longer work, gurulu watha (ගුරුළු වත), WD says,
"..poem is full of psychological meanings and applications of Freud's and Lacan's ideas would yield a rich harvest of meaning." (page 115)
WD, points out, that by this time GA was frequently iterating the need to draw from tradition and how experimentation on the western model was futile. His fifth poetry collection, Avarjana (ආවර්ජනා), focused on the sterility and lack of meaning in middle class life.
WD spends no less than four pages, to discuss his next poetry collection, Asak da kava (අසක් දා කව). Using four quotations, as found in the sidath sangarawa (සිදත් සඟරාව) of a poem based on Asankhavati Jathaka ( the poem itself is no longer extant ), GA used the poetic idiom prevalent in the Kotte period,to themetize,
"...the erosion of human values in a rapidly modernizing society, through allegory." (page 117).
It is clear that most of Amarasekara's poetry is based on his world view that modernism has depreciated human value. To add my own comments here, I must concede that while this is true largely in a Sri Lankan context, most of the western nations who have advanced beyond us, are today more genuine in their relationship. While it is true that modernity has not given the cities more leisure, and close relationships are known to suffer, a level of maturity has been noticed in their overall approach. In essence with the 21st century, a new ethic, based on the independence of an individual is taking shape - and religion has very little to do with it.However, noting that most of Amarasekara's poetry was the product of an era before 2010, and most of it based on the observations of the last 30-40 years of the previous millennium, Amaraseakra cannot be faulted, especially considering how we have been lost as a nation, even after we got a chance to handle own affairs.
WD then move to the essays that GA has written on Sihnala poetry, mainly through Sinhala Kavya Sampradaya ( සිංහල කාව්ය සම්ප්රදාය ) and Aliya saha Andhayo ( අලියා සහ අන්ධයෝ ). While the former of these two books are already discussed in this same blog as a separate essay, his consistent lamentation is that the modern poet has not considered the continuous tradition of 14-15 years, much to the detriment of Sinhala Literature. WD quotes GA in translation;
"poetry constitutes the language of the national heart. It is also the conscience of the nation",
which he quotes from Sinhala Kavya Sampradaya. WD, further demonstrates amply how, GA has shown how tradition is deeply connected to language, and how language shows that the surrounding world is emotionally meaningful one's tradition. WD, compares GA's ideas with that of Raymond Williams, who criticized materialist stand point of making culture part of the superstructure, and in contrast thought of it as a constitutive social process. WD, points out on how GA repeatedly insisted in the centrality of tradition. GA has repeatedly criticised the rampant consumerism, which he couples with the middle class way of life.
WD, then moves to discuss GA's political ideology jathika chinthanaya or national thought, which created general interest among a section of the youth, while becoming an object of vitriolic criticism and even ridicule. WD's own presenting of GA's concept of 'jathika chinthanaya' needs to be read closely to interpret its failings - the following excerpt at best represents his position, and this is a more just criticism than I've read elsewhere by writers who are themselves conditioned by their strong political views;
"Many would argue that this response begs more questions than it answers, and that greater clarification is needed on issues of minority identity, agency, and culture as well as ideas of difference and otherness, and how they feed into notions of citizenship" (page 128)
WD, spends sometime comparing the ideas of Hans-Goerg Gadamer with GA, and in his subtle way doesn't fail to highlight where there are limitations in their ideas. ( pages 129-130)
WD then moves to focus on the Sinhala novel as wriiten by GA, He starts with what are now considered classics - namely Karumakkarayo and Yali Upannemi, where he focused on sexual morality. He then discusses more social conscious novels like Gamanaka Mula and Gam Dorin Eliyata. WD draws parallel with a F.R. Leavis' review of Charles Dickens - Only difference was Leavis didn't rate Dickens highly as novelist, but more as a social historian. While all, including his critics concur that GA is one of the best Sinhala novelists, the social historian tag where the comparisons tally. There is a very important statement that WD makes with respect GA's novels, which I wan to copy in verbatim - since I agree with it, largely.
"There is a general belief that during the past two decades or so Gunadasa Amarasekara made use of the novel as a vehicle to convey his views on politics and society in a propagandistic mode. This is a misreading of his fiction. To my mind, what he has sought to do is to understand our current social predicaments through the actions and behaviour of diverse characters as they respond confusedly to issues of tradition and modernity..." ( page 133)
Conclusion: In conclusion WD, says he wishes to broach three topics with respect to the four cultural intellectuals that he discussed.
i. Traditional Concepts for Heuristic Purposes: WD portrayed how traditional concepts associated with the Greater Indian Tradition were used by the four intellectuals in focus for clarification. But WD cautions the need to pluralize the meanings of the meanings of these terms, and explore their discursive foundations. ( This reminded me of the concept of පේත that Eric Illayappaarachchi recently with total effectiveness. ) WD, referes Blumenberg's concept of metaphorogy - where the gap between models of the world based on concepts and the lived historical world within which concepts take shape is reflected upon.
ii. Modernity - He argues that modernity and tradition is virtually inter-linked, and he discusses a seminal work on the counter-argument - The Passing of Traditional Society, by Daniel Lerner, and his concept of psychic mobility, or empathy. WD argues that Lerner's argument should lead to a consumer society, and he had judged pre-modern societies as "highly constrictive" ones. He concludes with the the following statement to point out Lerner's simplistic and reductive dichotomy, in contrast to the four intellectuals discussed;
"What is significant about the writing... is that they subscribe to a much more sophisticated notion of tradition and social modernization. Interestingly, some of their formulations on this topic predate Lerner's book by a decade" (page 143)
iii. WD then proceeds to discuss the way contemporary cultural theorists react to the formulations of the four cultural intellectuals. He projects that they'd argue that,
"traditions are modern creations offered to meet present demands and that they are a way of appealing to the generality of the populace, while covering over some faults and fissures in modern society.",
and that issues of discontinuity, otherness and internal differences have not been given adequate attention. He projects that they'd further argue that cultural texts should include modern popular cultural products such as films and television shows. Yet, WD grants that the four that has been considered has paid attention to some of these aspects, and not others. (144)
WD then spends time on the feminist argument that the four intellectuals didn't dispaly a deep and progressive discussion on the feminist dilemmas in modern Sri Lankan society. WD tacitly admits this, for gender as a fundamental category of social experience is a recent development, and the masculine perspective being universalized was the norm. WD elaborates on who is a feminist and what makes one a feminist, quite lucidly and concisely using the views of Karen Offen (page 145).
Then he discussed the argument that the four were essentialists ( i.e. belief is a true essence). WD counter argues that this is an incorrect premise, since the four recognized the contingent and historically determined nature of tradition.
WD is thorough, and his study is on what cultural theorists can learn from these cultural intellectuals. (a) He finds fault with post-colonial theorists for not studying the classical traditions - and he emphasizes that this is surprising given a pioneer like Derrida spend a lot of time on the texts of Plato and Aristotle. (b)Next he moves to discontinuities, stating that Foucault overstated the case, thereby weakening it, for a meaningful discussion on discontinuities doesn't make sense without a sense of continuity. (c) The inseparable link between culture and tradition as stressed by the four, as against such critics as F.R. Leavis is another case point that WD stresses, stating that the globalized ensures coming together of culture and civilization.
It is clear that modernization is a global condition that reshapes and re-energizes our understanding of self and society, time and space in culturally specific ways. Wickramasinghe and Amarasekara, in particular have pointed this out. ( page 148)
Other important points that emerged from the writing of this four are:
(d) the need to abandon the third world as an undifferentiated and monolithic entity
(e) The concept of experience, and how although it is suspect in modern theory, (Lyotard, Derrida, Althusser). Yet the four intellectuals have pointed out that despite its limitations, experience can be used productively in re-understanding the role and function of culture and its relationship to tradition.
(f) Community: Western theorists see community as a site in which individual interests can be negotiated, whereas the writers focused on the network of commonalities,and how the community is a precondition for individual success.
(g) Historical Consciousness: The idea of history and its relationship to tradition has been focused on in such works as Sinhala Sahithyaye Nageema and Sinhala Kavya Sampradaya.
(h) Agency: Individuals as carriers and transformers of tradition, as a locus from which an action can be initiated, whether it is one of reconfirmation, or resistance.
(i) Deconstruction: WD quotes classical Indian theorist Mammata;
"The poem is most effective when the suggested meaning exceeds the articulated sense" ( page 152)
,which he sees as a parallel to the views of deconstructionists. WD, futher states the MS and ES in particular have used this concept very effectively, long before deconstruction gained popularity.
Excellent review.
ReplyDelete