Politics of literary criticism today
Last
Saturday the 88th birth anniversary of the late Regi Siriwardene was
remembered by the International Centre for Ethnic Studies (ICES). Then
this columnist remembered an essay written by Regi Siriwardena. The
title of this longish but a vey useful easy was ‘Politics of Literary
Criticism Today’. This article was published in the now defunct Pravaada
dateline Nov-Dec 1995 (Vol 4, No 4). The journal’s editors were the late
Charles Abeysekera and Jayadeva Uyangoda.
Regi Siriwardena |
What I propose to do in this week’s column is to present to you
selective excerpts from R S’s essay and in between my own responses to
the writer’s observations for the benefit of our readers, especially
students of literature.
Talking of structuralists, Regi said that’’ only a minority of
literary critics, especially in Britain and the States were
structuralist. On the other hand, the progenitors of the earlier
critical evolution- Eliot, Richards, Leavis – can be quite acceptably
called ‘modernist’, and their ideas were closely linked with the
creative movements of modernism’
Regi prefaces that “When I speak of post-modernism here, I really
mean politically radical post-modernism” He adds “Relations of power-
whether class, ethnic or gender - articulated in literature are the main
concern of post- modernist criticism.”
What I liked in Regi’s pronouncement is this: “…it is desirable that
radical-post-modernists should recognize that hey are themselves part of
the power structures they criticize.
They are no doubt a dissenting group within those structures they
criticize, but they are nevertheless part of them: firstly, by virtue of
their high proficiency in the English language, which carries with it in
our society a position of intellectual privilege; secondly, through
their acquaintance with and ability to deploy with competence and skill
a new body of ideas and a novel critical language that are still
unfamiliar to the majority even of the Sri Lankan English-speaking
intelligentsia; thirdly, through the positions they occupy in the
university establishment, several of them being in fact members of
English departments. All these are indubitable sources of power”
Apart from the lucidity and the way he writes which I admire most,
his follow up statement is dear to my heart. This is what he says:
Yet there is a paradox here, because power is actually what
post-modernist criticism, or those trends within it on which I am
focusing, claims to be subverting. Relations of power- whether class,
ethnicity or gender – as articulated in literature are the main concern
of post-modernist criticism. But articulated, not necessarily overtly,
because much of the endeavour of post-modernist criticism consists of
teasing out of literary texts those unspoken, or even unconscious,
pre-conceptions and assumptions that reinforce class, race or gender
hierarchies.”
I wish that I quote more from Regi’s essay, but space would not
permit to do it.
Last Saturday (May 15, 2010 marked the 88th birthday anniversary of
the late Regi Siriwardena. To remember him the ICES organized a memorial
lecture creditably presented by Ranjini Obeysekera on the subject the
difficulty of attempting to translate from one language to the other
particularly literary texts.
Though academic in fashion, the presentation was worthy to listen to
particularly of the reading of the early Pali and Sinhala texts. The
function was chaired by former Sunday Observer editor Lakshman
Gunasekera who connected the contribution of Regi towards
intellectualism in the country.
Two young ladies read excerpts from Regi’s poetry and a play. I liked
the reenactment of the play by their superb reading. It was amusing in
its content too.
[email protected] |